20041801 Ver 3_Meeting Request Review_20201204

ID#* 20041801
Version* 3
Regional Office* Raleigh Regional Office - [phone]
Reviewer List* Stephanie Goss
Pre -Filing Meeting Request submitted 12/4/2020
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name * S&EC, PA - Bob Zarzecki
Contact Email Address*
Project Name*
Project Owner*
Project County*
Owner Address:
[e-mail]
Belmont Lake Preserve
Rocky Mount WEH, LP
Nash
Street Address
56 Hunter Street
Address Line 2
Suite 230
aty
Apex
Rbstal / Zip Code
27502
Is this a transportation project? * r Yes r No
State / Frovince / Region
NC
Country
United States
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - F 401 Water Quality Certification -
Regular Express
W Individual Permit F Modification
r- Shoreline Stabilization
Does this project have an existing project ID#?*
r Yes r No
Please list all existing project ID's associated with this projects.*
DWQ Project No. 20041801
Do you know the name of the staff member you would like to request a meeting with?
Rick Trone
Please give a brief project description below.*

Belmont Lake Preserve (BLP) is a residential golf course community
on the north side of Rocky Mount, Nash County, NC. It was formerly
known as "Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount". The development was
permitted by the USACE & DWR in 2005/2006. The development was
only partially completed by the time the "Great Recession" hit
between 2007-2009. The original owner went bankrupt. The current
owner purchased the undeveloped portions of the property and
eventually the golf course. Negotiations with the USACE and DWR
began in 2013/3014 to confirm compliance with 404/401 & Tar -Pam
Buffer regulations. The IP was suspended in April 2015 and revoked
in September 2015. The current owner then began the process of
renewing the permits. Meetings and site visits occurred with both the
USACE and DWR and the City of Rocky Mount to confirm existing
conditions and develop a plan of action to re -permit the development.
The development was redesigned to avoid and minimize many of the
previously permitted impacts. Significant delays occurred as the
result of property ownership issues, most notably associated with an
inholding property that "cut off" Belmont Lake Drive (the main
boulevard thru the development), as well as other issues. A site visit
was held with Paul Wojoski in April 2019 to familiarize him with the
project and renewthe buffer determinations. To date we have not
received the buffer determination letter. Further delays occurred as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic, however the owner is eager to
finalize the permitting for the development. We would like to request a
preliminary meeting with Rick Trone who will understand will be taking
over the DWR permitting for the project to familiarize him with the
project and obtain his guidance on how he would like to proceed. I
have proposed December 17th or 18th for this preliminary meeting
and anticipate it will be virtual given the pandemic. I can possibly
move things around to meet earlier as well.
Please give a couple of dates you are available for a meeting.
12/18/2020
12/17/2020
Please attach the documentation you would like to have the meeting about.
Belmont Lake Preserve(Wetlands Stream
3.34MB
Impacts)_1-3-2019 Impacts Map.pdf
Fords Colony 401 Approval - 11-03-2006.pdf 522.96KB
BLP Agent Authorization 2017.pdf 232.34KB
Ford's Colony Permits 2005-2006.pdf 6.19MB
pdf only
By digitally signing below, I certify that I have read and understood that per the Federal Clean Water Act Section
401 Certification Rule the following statements:
• This form completes the requirement of the Pre -Filing Meeting Request in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification
Rule.
• I understand by signing this form that I cannot submit my application until 30 calendar days after this pre -filing
meeting request.
• I also understand that DWR is not required to respond or grant the meeting request.
Your project's thirty -day clock started upon receipt of this application. You will receive notification regarding meeting location
and time if a meeting is necessary. You will receive notification when the thirty -day clock has expired, and you can submit an
application.

Signature
Submittal Date 12/4/2020
Reviewer Meeting Request Decision
Has a meeting been scheduled?* r Yes r No

0
v
2
a
5
O EMSTNG NPACTS (7)
[1,2,22,23,24,25,2 6]
O PROPOSED NPACTS (12)
14912, 1 5,1 6917, 1 8, 19,20921 ,31 ,37938]
O NPACT NO LONGER REQUIRED (2) 5,13
O CRM RE
O UTILITY
SOLVED
(2) 32,33
RBO OAK BATTLggORO
ROAO SR 16Q4
,1A`♦
,E
' :::�I!��_:::=ell' � � =- � •
_..._...�.;,` ..--• _-..., ,IranI
..rl-_. IIMI■._..._.
II.._:::ee�- IIIL_..._..
._..,, III_..._..., e
Ih\ eu_u■
IIL •• a—• IIL■.:ri■::�_■ IIL a��
_u■■_u■ �u■_urIN
Mm
Ill�u
IILAhi,■_..._.IL '� •NO
%
a III -�■ III •--�
-� �Iluwlll_�
20
::`—I11I it :—'::7
R.'l.L�i
t•'
�1l111►..,...
AEIIrIIII�
■■■aura_,
_i■ I■
■■�' El!!:
.::•-
�HE
�E�III_:ee=
;:�... full
�i1:��111�_■.:_.
d�■■■_.�IIIL�1!
.92
�J
1
34 °
' ( 122.0
. It.
,.._..
'i ..,ram '�:' � • -'
IIIIw .. „ .w �!
.■_..._.
■
1►�u_u■
21i1A•
V
IN
ves�:G:�.■'
25,12.0i... _....M.
17.38 Ac
IIL_..;._..
1 1
It.,.j
/IMMA
„-■��I��� .'�Iiimu'll! d�!::-_ life ��11an: y� El��/,,E:::._..._��� 0.EMSww,,iwwr,�w
s1L_. ,_.. 11 �ir IEIiL. - IE�._`■..�..._..._
III•_.... II_.Y.._,... II ..._ all_...._..■ !!_..■_..._.u�. �a ... I �1 •.
L-.._....�•.,..._..._...��-__,....�- ..�., III :.iy .vawwlvlr►.ww:�l
._,■._. ._. .T ► NL._.. ,.... ,_-,.._. - ..\ - G.._. ulal..�.. �1..- �II��IIe:, .�wwMw�rv�AwwAnwl
..._... ...... dl_y... ...�..1_.�=.:_...I �+— 1 AAAAihAb'd•b1A1111/1Ah1
a..e� r.a 11 ''� IYL... �.>r.■.,_..r_ ICi>!.r,_..:,�;.:,..._ 1!"e__�■,. .�...._..._- � .._.,�,.,...
-■=—mN�!e: � r�_:••' ::::= a:-14111-•- i !�:_;:::_..1, �=�" �<,.a,�.°,>o°h.�,�°o°,°�.�,a.,.,.,..., . III�II.__::.--- �::��►1._..._._ IIIR .. ...,n.
I
\ �u_n.■e �'�' �■ ►r.tvo■�ir,I �■e�:v■►_�■ �•7►l. '�¢�■uGw�u � 1� _:■_�.■.�■ -- � � ,. __,..�.
11_...�d.., _..._.f. .u_�■. �''► illllll._... —___ '°�1`►_ .._"., _ :,_.._ Irl■'.on
-�. 1 _ � I .. � .AM►AAA/IA/IIIIMAM/M
�a=■ �r I ,� �� �/_Y■■:dG_v \ ,Ill�u_ou■.. ;:�:��l�i��u'wwer ri.G■�1�1 •. ■■aa�u■ ��,�.■ /�1 �'1�1`Vre�u�-a..■ � ��■u_.r
..AIL . 1 - - �;., ..�s.:...,:•;•,❖•,❖•;;• _ . ..1_r.ca�,.■■ \.If�
S�L .!MGL!:: s�uj�■ !I_■a��:u�=.� IG.i:r �iY'; ,r`�•' �Ig� I►1,...�' ;,ur�� ,��
Alp Lk
�_:._,..:::�:�:•::•:;: I il�.,,.Y. - -• !!I. _., _-- ,�11. _►'
• ff�ss= ` ,_:u�l` ■.II•m= nu ■ISMv_-�u: \ :•. �:: sy��sa roR, ��1�\I���IiGa 1-0.2 ■'
::-;� '1�. =..i� I / 1_...=.... - III•\_-.iw
i—■:■y1� ..,� i 111.�....,., -ro-_ ��� `.p�■ui.■■ �I:Srmc�S:ii��.,.00 ' M■■■■ ■u_■a■ -
IISQI■ 11�-,&n.._ �. �I-_3._ffdOGd 1. �,•d_■ '1■\\mil\'■�■/ i..�...y\ ` / /�. �■ 11 1 ■\■1_,■'
.•_..ed���m._ _—...�..1 IIL.._,:,, I .. .°. 1 •1■_
IIh._�..■� - :. -_ 11_II,■._.■._ G11�.. �'� .Ilr►.w��.. 1H. ,.aw�Arwww�w�•ww
1
�11■_,uuu ' �d •�■� _ . �}!!�= _ ,,�u■_u \_�Y.wnu � gazN■_■►, I�■_�u
- �j■6� wMrM�arMr�l�wr_w�r
...._,.. : III..=..._. M.._..._.. '' ,.1 1�11..■_,...,_.
--
�` 1 r..�....�... _II—,.._ ,.�...�.., 1 ;ir\`AAM/IA`►. r "6��II,�__a_.n. r AAAM�i1Mw�AA1AAl11."
._... �I:. wiwlrMa/� � � -._.. II. .AAAAAIrAAAI►AAAAIgI/ R '
.. -
_ �rweAAawwl/......� �lwMw
-� r- 'fir■■■� __ �M■■■_\ _ :�%dv' - \�I■•
.�,_-__—. � � : ;�.a,�wr-.. �.., �. ,/Mlf►Il1AMMhA1�AAAAAA .,
r� �IAAMAI,.a�AA,.�Y11A1AA1b,11�.. ✓ .I!' 11,A,IIw
I !I�••• ''r�,MIIA'r11►�A�►"�AAM►`A� �� s ..AhQM�I✓
^ ,I•�.::..�rl ''ilL!�� :., ♦ ,���MI►�MMAAI►\Mr,M►►��A/►lw�-
ill•!!.._:.._.,,�I''�'� tj'r �� � .��`4,a111►5�lM/►�1_IAiAA/IIIAh�A.`� �..w. � � �. ,.� ,
II�11�,�� ,g...i=l:a•:1�1_e�I:—'rs i �®' ' ►• �MArlr�'.lwA'r`wtiMnrlllw/�►����wrA►k��►�/+Y. vURw1.w1.�s�-,.1�Gnr_w.r._.�hwA►w►�`w.+�.M +wll�1/l►� �' � �►4AAMI►►AA`w.�rtAAAA��//Irti.w►-�.....,_ ,�. M,.i101•! IIMIAM.M.uAlIrMvrAMl►Awr �
►AfI
•
..MAIAAIAr►' 1�
7111�' _°°•— ® ,, ••..��►�r► i► ILMAA�r►Ar► �AthMAhA�
..,_..._� ._ •��wavlr wA....., _ �, �Il1Aw►� v►�a1►w► �MMwI�
►..._..._� ® �;' jig..
■ `� .,y► .�/ nllrlAd►atlr►.n►'�.� �►..1A�AAr11► VIMM►A
/111MA/✓ _!�
,
..:. — .._. a.—. �,... +w�•r,..r/ ,/w�rv�►w�iw+�,wArww AIMrMwVMr_M�IAMA►�
,�111lun_ � ... I.-_1 ,.:::_• -; ,
_N- i�',i•= S 12 1 _► wl'r..,-�l�w�,r�.+i�Ll.►',,.►�>I�♦ i .--I�.+A�.D•►war-w.♦_aw•+L:uwwl►►lwrAlrrlwlwwl,lrArl•►� AaA�►A:AIR►Mw.��Iw►wMlwwy�wll�.�w�l`yaa.w►diMw►►'w..MMAMwI.IAa��MAwMwwAIA!wl.K►/I.►�,/,r
Ar• :OOMIN
ill
w..-
�
1
l•L
WETLANDS DELINEATED
LOCATED BY OTHERS
WETLANDS DELINEATION
GOLF COURSE
WATER
. . . . y . y . y . y . y . y . y
WWWWWWWWWWy OPEN SPACE
W y W y W y W y W y W y W y
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- � ®■ I. I�_.�■.gym■ 1
III_... � ..,_.■■. _►,I���r. � ,• • r
11lY■■_.. �._ ®���••••�111� ® �� °_. h II w�w+►�w�LAAAAr•�Arinl��wlrlr•► %� , .
.,—..._.. � 1�_.1_:.._..�,. '�71►Aw1I/I/U/U/IA►'i1/UA� � .,
: �111 O �--�.•,�IIIII ' � � � ����• �111 I ..:::,�='��Ilil'll vw:�nn'"r�---� `- :;.• ,.
1 1 eIL�.,,,;•_ °i■_r, ill ._... r,:
IIII, d�J■S_.I. s eow. .._
E.
KOX
IIIL.._.._ IIIL.._... 111l�,,.■■_.■,,. �..e_.,.= ...'.••a:a•'. . •■ III
iJ
_... II!■ _.. .. III —..._.... u=
_..._ 1 _..._ IIL._..._ .._:,.. __ � �S�..Y■d8a-■■d4�- ', .._
y
.. � II. _..- � 11._..._.. ,..■_.. -II ._._...did," dl._ .,�.;:►
�11�. .IIC..._f=^ ■.. .1.� e...�=_.�- rrr..._ _,.
'SSSSd8.�88■� ■ I�■■_■■■_■ � ��■■_� di■■■_�■ $ SSSSdd^..■■■_■ /� �� —'
.a:&dFdFAddd4&&& III_..._... . 1 �11 AIL_■.._, �:��_ ._,... '.n�.�,....4dL=ddY.l...�-�:�--� � o ��' ��
�i � ■ �I �■■■_I■■■ n 1lg�' It,�■■.■_■■^� � , a.. � 4■■■ddsttssl-J -\ _■f■S�_.._ �
_54-
o o.\ ••' :::emu:■wiil�r��ea... : �,. r--_■1��1 � ••.•ao; ss54 /Ii�ll�w;�, o■:'p.-- / ® 0 // --
°>;o-�■.._..r.;�
.. �>BGs: SS_■■�
—... ._... r.� ��
,...,.�-
_.:: IIL 11 .,,IL_:• •
;'•: Lilly _m"oIm
IIIIIL_:e: IO2 . . sa >
.. —...I ,.■._...__Il ■III 141
STREAM DELINEATED BY OTHERS USACE verified pond &
ditch in this section are not
STREAM — USGS jurisdictional on 111111111017.
SCALE: I " = 400'
�0_
10
gil
I11"WHI -1
II■■_■E1�
ru
Ik!!::
I
OWNER
ME INN
III...._■ ' �•��. ,
'MIL. !LLL d
Imo";. =-,.._... Y
g 5S al1�,��:�r •
/o
PON
NIP
f �
_.Y:._.Y..111111�
IN
IN
/I�■iioc -- y .��j� i
1' III_ n■■�.�. _ . '1'
M�Ati►ArWr� I ' .■. � •
M w riM
�AAU•Mr�AM
rr
�A
�r►.Iwlra /
I
1
O
f
V pf
N Nlj�pG 1
i BERG K5 PP 305 60
(� pg 2�63�1$ �2�U
Zot4 D0 ERCIP�
,I t0
BEAM pGKY PAS 11665, 1r S W
pg 3$ 2o
PIN loclm; ER�IA �y
m
aR 'a4a .
eo. RAN,
�JI
w 100 YK ti
00
NOTES
1. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY IS 6 UNITS PER ACRE. }
m
2. THIS MAP WAS PREPARED AS A WETLANDS AND WATERBODY IMPACT(S)
EXHIBIT AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY
SHOWN HEREON NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR REAL ESTATE
CONVEYANCES.
Single Family
Residential and Commercial
Residential (Multifamily, Cluster z
O
Townhouse Zero -lot)
7 U
U)
W
0
Existing Roads
Proposed Roads
FDH (Fords)
Impact
Number
Impact(s)
Road Impacts
acres
Utility Impacts
acres
Wetland
Stream
Buffer
Wetland
Stream
Buffer
acres
LF
acres
acres
LF
acres
4
R-W4
0.042
-
5
R-W5
--
--
--
--
--
--
12
R-BF-4, R-S4, U-1312, U-S12
--
57.4
0.173
--
--
--
14
U-W14
--
--
--
0.079
--
--
15
R-W14
0.008
--
--
--
--
--
16 & 17
R-B F-6, R-S5, R-W 15
0.041
71.1
0.164
- -
- -
- -
18 & 19
R-13F-7, R-S6, R-W18
0.107
70.4
0.163
--
--
--
20
R-13F-8, R-S7, R-W19
0.063
73.2
0.180
--
--
--
21
R-W20a & R-W20b
0.100
--
--
--
--
--
31
R-S13 & R-BF-12
--
50.9
0.117
--
--
--
37
RC-37
0.008
--
--
--
--
--
38
RC-38
0.011
--
--
--
--
--
U-1
U-W1
0.010
--
--
--
--
--
U-2
U-W2
0.012
--
--
--
--
--
DATE
11 /28/2018
SCALE
1 "=400'
DRAWN BY
DRM
JOB NUMBER
170145A
DRAWING FILE
Wetlands & Stream Impacts
LAYOUT TAB
LAYOUT 1
�w>—cn—Ozcn
JOYNER KEENY, PLLC
,AND PLANNING & SURVEYIN<
1051 N. Winstead Avenue - P.O. Box 7533
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27804
North Carolina Firm No. P-0551
V.- 252.977.3124
F: 252.985.6026
O�
�¢
y
��
O
SHEET 1 OF 1

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
November 3, 2006
Mr. Drew Mulhare
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
One Ford's Colony Drive
Rocky Mount, NC, 27809
Re: Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, Nash County
DOA Action ID 200421182, DWQ Project No. 20041801
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE per the
Tar -Pamlico River Buffer Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259) with Additional Conditions
APPROVAL of Isolated Wetlands Permit
Dear Mr. Mulhare:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3535 issued to Mr. Drew Mulhare of Ford's Colony at
Rocky Mount, LLC, dated January 27, 2006. Isolated wetlands impacts associated with this project are
covered by the State General Permit for Impacts to Isolated Wetlands and Isolated Waters
(IWGP100000). This letter shall also act as your approved Authorization Certificate for impacts to the
protected riparian buffers per 15A NCAC 2B .0233. In addition, you should get any other federal, state
or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste,
Sediment and Erosion Control, Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non -discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This Certification replaces the one issued to you on February 10, 2006.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: Jean Manuele, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, USACOE
Eric Kulz, DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Todd St. John, Kimley-Home, P.O. Box 33068, Raleigh, NC, 27636-3068
Jeff Harbour, ESI, 524 New Hope Road, Raleigh, NC, 27610
Filename: 041801FordsColony(Nash)401 MOD2
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state,nc.us/ncwetlands
N""o �thtCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Oppodunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 2 of 7
November 3, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Mr. Drew Mulhare of Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
to permanently fill 3.98 acres of wetlands (including 2.08 acres of riparian wetlands, 1.99 acres of non -
riparian wetlands, and 0.19 acre of isolated wetlands) and 1,199 linear feet of stream channel (including 348
linear feet of perennial streams and 809 linear feet of intermittent streams), and to impact 71,701 square feet
of protected riparian buffers and for temporary impacts to 60 feet of perennial streams, 1.30 acres of
wetlands, and 12,632 square feet of protected riparian buffers, 1.03 acres of wetland creation, and 0.02 acre
of open water fill, adjacent to Beech Branch in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, associated with the
construction of the Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount development in Nash County, North Carolina, pursuant
to an application filed on the 12th day of November of 2004, and in additional correspondence received
April 1, April 12, August 9, September 7, September 23, 2005 and February 9, 2005.
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in
writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units)
Plan Location or Reference
Stream
1,199 (feet) permanent
Final project impacts as listed in
impacts
September 7, 2005
(348 feet perennial,
correspondence from
809 feet intermittent)
Environmental Services, Inc and
(also 60 feet perennial
revisions described in January
stream temporary impacts)
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kimley-
Horn Associates, Inc./WK
Dickson

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 3 of 7
November 3, 2006
404 Wetlands
3.98 (acres) permanent
Final project impacts as listed in
impacts
September 7, 2005
(2.08 acres riparian, plus
correspondence from
1.99 acres non -riparian)
Environmental Services, Inc and
(also 1.30 acres temporary
revisions described in January
impacts)
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kimley-
Horn Associates, Inc./WK
Dickson
Isolated Wetlands
0.19 (acre)
Final project impacts as listed in
September 7, 2005
correspondence from
Environmental Services, Inc and
revisions described in January
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kimley-
Horn Associates, Inc./WK
Dickson
Tar -Pamlico Buffers
71,701 (square feet)
Final project impacts as listed in
permanent impacts
September 7, 2005
(also 12,632 square feet
correspondence from
temporary impacts)
Environmental Services, Inc and
revisions described in January
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kimley-
Horn Associates, Inc./WK
Dickson
Open Water Impacts
1.03 (acres) wetland creation
Ford's Colony Rocky Mount
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Planning Report, April 7, 2005
0.02 (acres) of permanent fill
Correspondence from Kimley-
Horn dated September 23, 2005
Revisions described in January
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kimley-
Horn Associates, Inc./WK
Dickson
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 4 of 7
November 3, 2006
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/40 1 Permit Application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
Continuing Compliance:
Mr. Drew Mulhare and/or Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC, shall conduct construction
activities in a manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements
resulting from compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate
requirements of State law and federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws
are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or
federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the
Division may reevaluate and modify this Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d).
Before modifying the Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. Drew Mulhare and/or Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance
with 15A NCAC 211.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr. Drew
Mulhare and/or Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC in writing, shall be provided to the United
States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project;
Miti ag tion: (Buffers, Streams and Wetlands need details here)
6. Compensatory Mitigation
a. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
1) Ecosystem Enhancement Program to meet 1:1 wetland restoration/creation ratio
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts to wetlands as specified below. We
understand that you wish to make a payment to the Wetlands Restoration Fund
administered by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation
requirement to meet the 1:1 restoration/creation requirement. This has been determined
by the DWQ to be a suitable method to meet the mitigation requirement. Until the EEP

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 5 of 7
November 3, 2006
receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR — Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Office), no impacts specified in this Authorization Certificate shall occur. The
EEP should be contacted at [phone] if you have any questions concerning
payment into a restoration fund. You must make this payment within 60 days of the date
of this Certification or before impacts approved in this Certification occur, whichever
come first. Otherwise you must notify this Office within three weeks of the date this
Certification of the specific date (before impacts occur) that you will make this payment
for written approval by this Office. For accounting purposes, this Authorization
Certificate authorizes payment into the Wetlands Restoration Fund to meet the
following compensatory mitigation requirement:
2.08 acres riparian and 2.18 acres non -riparian wetland impacts.
2) On site to meet remaining onsite wetland mitigation requirements
A final compensatory wetland mitigation plan must be approved in writing by this Office
before any permanent building associated with the project is occupied for the additional
wetland mitigation proposed in the application and additional information provided to
NCDWQ. Additionally, the compensatory mitigation plan must be completely
constructed and implemented according to the plans approved by this Office within 5
years of this Certification. The mitigation must be maintained according to the approved
plan and permanently protected by the use of conservation easements or similar
protections. Any repairs or adjustments to the mitigation site must be made according to
the approved plan or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs
or adjustments.
b. Compensatory Stream and Buffer Mitigation
The stream and buffer restoration must be constructed, maintained, and monitored
according to the approved plans in the application and modifications to the application
(Stormwater Stream and Mitigation Planning Report, April 7, 2005). Any repairs or
adjustments to the site must be made according to the approved plans or must receive
written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments.
Stream and buffer mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts as specified
below. Additionally, the compensatory mitigation plan must be completely constructed
and implemented according to the plans approved by this Office by March 15, 2008 or as
otherwise approved by this Office in writing. The final mitigation must provide at least
348 feet of successful perennial stream restoration according to the approved plans.
Additionally, a minimum of 5541 square feet of buffer mitigation is required for the
2716 square feet of buffer impacts requiring mitigation as part of this stream restoration
project. The mitigation must be maintained according to the approved plan and
permanently protected by the use of conservation easements or similar protections. Any
repairs or adjustments to the mitigation site must be made according to the approved plan
or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments. Any
significant changes to the plan must be approved by this Office in writing before the plan
is implemented.
In order for this project to be used as compensatory mitigation for other specific projects,
you must obtain written approval from this Office. The request should include the amount

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 6 of 7
November 3, 2006
of stream length and buffer area credit requested for accounting purposes. Please specify
DWQ project No. 20041801 when making your request.
If the above stream and buffer restoration project is to be held, performed, and/or
provided by another entity such as but not limited to the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program or a mitigation banker, then the transaction must be approved by this Office in
writing before the transaction occurs. In order to receive written approval for this
transaction, it must be demonstrated to the Division that the mitigation requirements
specified in this Condition shall be completely and uniquely met.
Road Crossings:
Culvert Installation
Culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles
are not altered. Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions, pattern, and
longitudinal profile) must be maintained above and below locations of each culvert. Culverts shall
be designed and installed to allow for aquatic life movement as well as to prevent head cutting of
the streams. If any of the existing pipes are or become perched, the appropriate stream grade shall
be re-established or, if the pipes installed in a perched manner, the pipes shall be removed and re-
installed correctly.
The establishment of native, woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques
must be used where practicable instead of rip rap or other bank hardening methods. If rip -rap is
necessary, it shall not be placed in the stream bed, unless specifically approved by the Division of
Water Quality.
Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement and be designed to
adequately accommodate high water or flood conditions.
Stormwater Mana eg ment:
8. a) Before each development phase that is anticipated to exceed 30% impervious cover, including,
at a minimum, the 7 focus areas (as described in Appendix B and C of the "401 Water Quality
Certification - Stormwater Management Permit Application" dated May 11, 2005) is paved, final,
written stormwater management plans for that phase shall be approved in writing by the Division
of Water Quality's Wetlands Unit. The facilities must be designed to remove 85% TSS as well as
treat nitrogen in the runoff from each area. Also, before any permanent building or other
structure is occupied in each area, the facilities (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) for that area
shall be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management plan for that area (as
approved by the Wetlands Unit) shall be implemented. The structural stormwater practices as
approved by the Wetlands Unit as well as drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No
changes to the structural stormwater practices shall be made without written authorization from
the Division of Water Quality.
b) Before each development phase that is anticipated to be less than 30% impervious cover and is
outside the 7 focus areas (as described in Appendix H of the "401 Water Quality Certification -
Stormwater Management Permit Application" dated May 11, 2005) is paved, final, written
stormwater management plans for that phase shall be approved in writing by the Division of
Water Quality's Wetlands Unit. The facilities must be designed to provide diffuse flow through
the protected riparian buffers or designed to remove nitrogen and attenuate flow prior to

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 7 of 7
November 3, 2006
discharge. Also, before any permanent building or other structure is occupied in each area, the
facilities (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) for that area shall be constructed and operational,
and the stormwater management plan for that area (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) shall be
implemented. The structural stormwater practices as approved by the Wetlands Unit as well as
drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater
practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
Other conditions:
9. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of the project, the Applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project. Please send photographs
upstream and downstream of each culvert site to document correct installation along with the
Certificate of Completion form.
10. Deed Notifications
Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained jurisdictional wetlands,
waters and protective buffers in order to assure compliance for future wetland, water and buffer
impact. These mechanisms shall be put in place prior to impacting any wetlands, waters and/or
buffers approved for impact under this Certification Approval and Authorization Certificate. A
sample deed notification can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web site. at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The text of the sample deed notification may be modified as
appropriate to suit to this project.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit. The Isolated Wetlands
Permit will expire upon the expiration date of IWGP100000 (September 30, 2008) or unless
otherwise rescinded by the Director of the Division of Water Quality.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If
modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the
modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 3rd day of November 2006
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk �,

Certification of Completion
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of Wetland Permit:
County:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401 OversighVExpress Permitting Unit,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to send
certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Agent's Certification
I, ; hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I, as a duly registered Professional (i.e., Engineer,
Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically,
weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Registration No. Date

i'
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
�3412 falls cif ticGase Rn:id, Suilr I(1� 1Zalril;l�, ? C '7G17 • l'hs�sAe: (919) $4C3-i9(10 • Fa%: (919) R46-`)#67
� santic•c.cnm
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION 1 AGENT AUTHORIZATION
Project Name/Description: BELMONT LAKE PRESERVE S&EC Project 9 1182 7
Date: 2017-2018
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attn: James Lastinger Field Office: USAGE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Soil &
Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) staff (as my agent) to enter upon the property herein described
for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters
of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This document also authorizes S&EC (as my agent) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of a permit or
certification and any and all associated standard and special conditions. This notification supersedes any
previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for government
officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC to arrange a site
meeting prior to visiting the site.
PARCEL INFORMATION:
Parcel Index Numbers) (PIN): multiple
Site Address: Belmont Lake Drive. Rocky Mount, Nash County, NC
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Rocky Mount WEH, LP
Address: 56 Hunter Street, Suite 230, Apex, NC 27502
Phone No.: (9,1q) gS-1- t gg x- Fax No.: (
Mobile No.: (sir-) q b 1- `t L4 t
Emai1:c r;;-v,.,,,Qti..
t1 `. s..� i°�{ i der. I - r -I
Property Owne�int)
Property Owner Signature
Date
We hereby certify the -above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA28402-1890
September 28, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID. 200421182
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Attn: Mr. Drew Mulhare
One Ford's Colony Drive
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27809
Dear Mr. Mulhare:
In accordance with the written request submitted on your behalf by Mr. Jeff Harbour with
Environmental Services, Inc., on November 4, 2004, and the ensuing administrative record,
enclosed are two copies of a permit to authorize the proposed placement of fill material into 4.18
acres of wetlands and 1.23 acres of open water, the permanent loss of 398 linear feet of perennial
stream channel and 801 linear feet of intermittent stream channel, and the temporary disturbance
to 60 linear feet of perennial stream channel the mechanized landclearing and the discharge of fill
material associated with the development of Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount golf course and
residential subdivision. Specifically, the project consists of 1,150 acres located on the west side
of U.S. Highway 301, south of Battleboro Road, north of Rocky Mount, adjacent to Beech
Branch and several of its unnamed tributaries, Nash County, North Carolina.
You should acknowledge that you accept the terms and conditions of the enclosed permit
by signing and dating each copy in the spaces provided ("Permittee" on page 3). Your signature,
as permittee, indicates that, as consideration for the issuance of this permit, you voluntarily
accept and agree to comply with all of the terms and conditions of this permit. All pages of both
copies of the signed permit with drawings and exhibits should then be returned to this office for
final authorization. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
Title 33, Part 325.1(f), of the Code of Federal Regulations reads, in part, that, "A $10 fee
will be charged for permit applications when the work is noncommercial in nature and provides
personal benefits that have no connection with a commercial enterprise...", and "A fee of $100
will be charged for permit applications when the planned or ultimate purpose of the project is
commercial or industrial in nature and is in support of operations that charge for the production,
distribution, or sale of goods or services." As your application fits the later category, you are
requested to remit your check for $100, made payable to the Finance and Accounting Officer,
USAED, Wilmington. The check should accompany the signed and dated copies of your permit.

rV
After the permit is authorized in this office, the original copy will be returned to you; the
duplicate copy will be permanently retained in this office. Should you have questions, please
contact me, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone], extension 24.
Sincerely,
Jean B. Manuele
Chief, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Enclosures
Copy Furnished (with Special Conditions):
Mr. Jeff Harbour
Environmental Services, Inc.
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Mr. Michael Ellison
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Ms. Suzanne Klimek
Division of Water (Quality
North Carolina. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Permittee: FORD'S COLONY AT ROCKY MOUNT
Permit No: 200421182
Issuing Office: USAED, WILMINGTON
NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The
term "this offce" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over
the permitted activity or the appropriate official of the office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in the accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description:
Placement of fill material into 4.18 acres of wetlands and 1.23 acres of open water, the permanent loss of 398 linear
feet of perennial stream channel and 801 linear feet of intermittent, stream channel, and the temporary disturbance to
60 linear feet of perennial stream channel the mechanized land clearing and the discharge of fill material associated
with the development of Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount golf course and residential subdivision.
Project Location:
Project consists of 1,150 acres located on the west side of U.S. Highway 301, south of Battleboto Road,
north of Rocky Mount, adjacent to Beech Branch and several of its unnamed tributaries, Nash County,
North Carolina.
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions: 9/ /5q
1. The time Limit for completing the work authorized ends on December 31.20L15. If you find that you need more
time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least
one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although
you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Conditions 4 below. Should you wish
to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must
obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity
authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal
and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site eligible for listing in
ENG Form 1721, Nov 86 EDITIONS OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 DFR 325 (Appendix A))

4. If you sell the property associate with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space
provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions
specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is
attached if it contains such conditions.
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to
ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit.
Special Conditions:
*SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Further Information:
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
(X) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S. C. 403).
( ) Section 404 of the clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize.any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the
following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from
natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on
behalf of the United states in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity
authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 - 717-425

e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was mad in reliance
on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances
warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or
inaccurate (see 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest
decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and
revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33CFR 326.4
and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to
comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will
be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this
office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measure by
contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost.
6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit.
Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the
public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time
limit.
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this
permit.
(PERMITTEE) FORD'S COLONY DREW MULHARE
AT ROCKY MOUNT,
(DATE)
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed
below.
(DISTRICT Engineer) JOHN E. PULLIAM, JR., COLONEL
(DATE)
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this
permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated
with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
(Transferee) (Date)
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986-717425

r
s
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Action ID. 200421882; Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount,
Mr. Drew Mulhare)
a) All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict
compliance with the attached plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these
plans must be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
b) Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved
modification to this permit, no excavation, fill. or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take
place at any time in the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands.
This permit does not authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill
material within waters or wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all
borrow and fill activities connected with this project.
c) Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation,
fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or
maintenance of this project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns
within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands.
d) If the North Carolina Division of Water Quality has issued a
conditioned Water Quality Certification for your project, the conditions of that certification are
hereby incorporated as special conditions of this permit (attached as Exhibit A).
e) All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained
to prevent contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other
toxic materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the
permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Quality at [phone],
Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act would be followed.
f) Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in
waters or wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any
pollutants except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from
land clearing activities), or unsightly debris will not be used.
g) The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply
with the terms and conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project,
and shall provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or
maintenance of this project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all
conditions, shall be available at the project site during construction and maintenance of this
project

h) The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control
measures necessary to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and
wetlands outside the permit area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate
installation of silt fencing or similar appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil
disturbance or the movement of earthen fill, and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed
areas. Additionally, the project must remain in full compliance with all aspects of the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A
Article 4).
i) The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or
upon its expiration before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and
in such time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct,
restore the water or wetland to its pre -project condition.
j) Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the
Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery
of the violation.
k) In accordance with its agreement with the State Historic Preservation
Officer, the permittee shall take such measures as provided by the National Historic Preservation
Act and approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer to preserve, to the extent practicable,
the farm known as Dr. Franklin Hart Farm, a property which is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places. This includes the implementation of the "Historic Hedge Buffer" planting plan
dated December 3, 2004. The buffer should meet the following requirements: be at least 20 feet
wide, should be dense, with a mix of deciduous and evergreen plantings and contain low,
medium and tall specimens, and should consist of holly, cedar and longleaf pine. The variety of
traditional and native species of varying sizes, both evergreen and deciduous should include the
number of plantings shown in the attached planting plan with respect to height and caliper
indicated on the plan as reference in the e-mail dated September 27, 2005, from Mr. Peter
Sandbeck with the NC Department of Cultural Resources to the permittee.
1) The permittee shall make payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in the amount determined by the NCEEP, sufficient to perform
the restoration of 2.19 acres of riparian wetlands and 2.07 acres of non -riparian wetlands in the
Tar -Pamlico River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020101, Construction within jurisdictional areas on
the property shall begin only after the permittee has made full payment to the NCEEP and
provided a copy of the payment documentation to the Corps, and the NCEEP has provided
written confirmation to the Corps that it agrees to accept responsibility for the mitigation work
required, in compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.

t'
1
m) The permittee shall implement the stream and wetland mitigation plan
entitled "Stream and Wetland Mitigation Planning Report — Rocky Mount., N.C." dated April 7,
2005, which includes the restoration of 2,315 linear feet and the preservation of 3.143 linear feet
of stream channel and riparian buffer, the creation of 1.21 acres of emergent marsh around pond
and lake edges, restoration of 3.65 acres of headwater forest wetlands, enhancement of 3.18 acres
and the preservation of 19.63 acres of riparian bottomland hardwood forest. The wetland
construction and planting phases of this plan (not to include monitoring, maintenance, or
replacement plantings) shall be carried out prior to, or concurrently with any impacts to waters of
the United States associated with this permit authorization, and must be completed no later than
one year from the date of issuance of this permit. With respect to the stream mitigation,
construction is to begin in the fall of 2006 and be completed no later than March 15, 2007.
n) The permittee shall complete an as -built channel survey within sixty
days of completion of the stream mitigation project construction. The permittee shall document
the dimension, pattern, and profile of the restored channel. The permittee shall establish
permanent cross -sections at an approximate frequency of one per 20 (bankfull-width) lengths,
which represent approximately 50% pools and 50% riffle areas. The permittee shall also include
in the as -built survey: photo documentation at all cross -sections and structures; a plan view
diagram; a longitudinal profile; vegetation information; and a pebble count for all cross -sections.
o) The permittee shall perform Level I monitoring each year for the 5-
year monitoring period, with the first monitoring year beginning on the date of completion of the
restoration plan, including planting. The permittee shall submit the monitoring reports to the
Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Project Manager, within sixty days after
completion of each monitoring year. If less than two bankfull events occur during the first 5
years, the permittee shall continue monitoring until the second bankfull event is documented.
The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years. In the event that the required
bankfull events do not occur during the five-year monitoring period; the Corps of Engineers, in
consultation with the resource agencies, may determine that further monitoring is not required. It
is suggested that all bankfull occurrences be monitored and reported through the required
monitoring period. The permittee shall perform photo documentation twice each year (summer
and winter) to be submitted with the yearly monitoring report, for the 5-year monitoring period,
and for any subsequently required monitoring period.
p) The permittee shall include the following information in the Level I
monitoring report for the site: reference photos; plant survival analysis; and channel stability
analysis. The permittee shall complete the Monitoring Data Record, Sections 1 — 3, (pages 1 - 4,
attached as Exhibit B) for each cross-section, and for each year of monitoring. The permittee
shall include in the monitoring reports a discussion of any deviations from as built and an
evaluation of the significance of these deviations and whether they are indicative of a stabilizing
or destabilizing situation.

q) The mitigation success criteria, and required remediation actions, will
be generally based on the Appendix II, and the Photo Documentation, Ecological Function, and
Channel Stability criteria in the "Stream Mitigation Guidelines", dated April, 2003 (available on
the internet at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream_mitigation.html),
pages 24 and 25, under "Success Criteria:"
r) The permittee shall maintain the dimension, pattern, and profile of the
streams above and below all pipes and/or culverts - the stream channel shall not be modified by
widening the stream channel or by reducing the depth of the stream. For the installation of pipes
and/or culverts, the pipe inverts will be buried at least one foot below the bed of the stream for
culverts greater than 48 inches in diameter. For culverts 48 inches in diameter or smaller,
culverts must be buried below the bed of the stream to a depth equal to or greater than 20 percent
of the diameter of the culvert. A waiver from the depth specifications in this condition may be
requested in writing. The waiver will only be issued if it can be demonstrated that the impacts of
complying with this condition would result in more adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
s) For the installation of pipes, the bank -full flows (or less) shall be
accommodated through maintenance of the existing bank -full channel cross sectional area.
Additional culverts at such crossings, if required, shall be allowed only to receive flows
exceeding bank -full. Flows exceeding bank -full shall be accommodated by installing culverts at
the floodplain elevation where adjacent floodplain is available.
t) The wetland vegetation monitoring and wetland hydrology monitoring
identified pages 28-31 will be implemented as outlined in Ford's Colony Rocky Mount Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Planning Report dated April 7, 2005.
u) Prior to initiating construction within jurisdictional areas as authorized
by this permit, the permittee shall contact the Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field
Office Project Manager (available at telephone [phone], extension 24) to arrange a pre -
construction meeting between the Corps and the contractor who will perform the authorized
work.

�.v
< A 1
_ ,• �,✓r , ..,� Cud s�=, ����,• > d�
ter' � o
,; s QJ'11rrg-
� 4�b••�� �� ➢ so• � ,' ��•� �� / � �7�I �tffj W� J��j�G � vQr9��A� f o, yJ) ,
• �� a _ �I .■ ��, 3 N �r ♦ �'� � o �®�,��%gay
[c!e •• �1 �,���1 tau, �-: QvJ ,B'l
v .+i ;., �_ _,�_ _ r �"� s L\gr9das' • ► U4+ ��r;', � � Sr W � � as
' �i�ilYuirri��_n:9ii ��.0 •,�,+. I� �i:rr rem �� {��17 Sc 'V� �i �� ��rr�`
� a oa0
�� «� 4' ��� 5 4r•r.9_;V�.rN..,a\ 1�f; 4 �.. �a a:� • �&iV.

Q� WA
�TF R
qQ/4QG ��„'�b` Michael F. Easley, Governor
Y �� William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
' r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
U `( Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 26, 2005
Mr. Drew Mulhare
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
One Ford's Colony Drive
Rocky Mount, NC, 27809
Re: Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, Nash County
DOA Action ID 200421182, DWQ Project No. 20041801
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE per the
Tar -Pamlico River Buffer Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259) with Additional Conditions
APPROVAL of Isolated Wetlands Permit
Dear Mr. Mulhare:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3535 issued to Mr. Drew Mulhare of Ford's Colony at
Rocky' Mount, LLC, dated September 26, 2005. Isolated wetlands impacts associated with this project are
covered by the State General Permit for Impacts to Isolated Wetlands and Isolated Waters
(IWGP100000). This letter shall also act as your approved Authorization Certificate for impacts to the
protected riparian buffers per 15A NCAC 2B .0233. In addition, you should get any other federal, state
or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste,
Sediment and Erosion Control, Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non -discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Alan W. YJimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: Jean Manuele, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, USACOE
Eric Kulz, DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Todd St. John, Kimley-Home, P.O. Box 33068, Raleigh, NC, 27636-3068
Jeff Harbour, ESI, 524 New Hope Road, Raleigh, NC, 27610
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carobb 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: hfto://h2o.enr.state. ha us/nmetlands
Filename: 041801FordsColony(Nash)401
One
N Caron�na
,url,
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 2 of 7
September 26, 2005
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTWICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2I1, Section .0500 to Mr. Drew Mulhare of Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
to permanently fill 4.37 acres of wetlands (including 2.19 acres of riparian wetlands, 1.99 acres of non -
riparian wetlands, and 0.19 acre of isolated wetlands) and 1,199 linear feet of stream channel (including 398
linear feet of perennial streams and 801 linear feet of intermittent streams), and to impact 79,122 square feet
of protected riparian buffers and for temporary impacts to 60 feet of perennial streams, 1.01 acres of
wetlands, and 12,632 square feet of protected riparian buffers, 1.21 acres of wetland creation, and 0.02 acre
of open water fill, adjacent to Beech Branch in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, associated with the
construction of the Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount development in Nash County, North Carolina, pursuant
to an application filed on the 12th day of November of 2004, and in additional correspondence received
April 1, April 12, August 9, September 7, and September 23, 2005.
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 211 .0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in
writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units)
Plan Location or Reference
Stream
1,199 (feet) permanent
Final project impacts as listed in
impacts
September 7, 2005
(398 feet perennial,
correspondence from
801 feet intermittent)
Environmental Services, Inc
(also 60 feet perennial
stream temporary impacts)
404 Wetlands
4.18 (acres) permanent
Final project impacts as listed in
impacts
September 7, 2005
(2.19 acres riparian, plus
correspondence from
1.99 acres non -riparian)
Environmental Services, Inc

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 3 of 7
September 26, 2005
(also 1.01 acres temporary
impacts)
Isolated Wetlands
0.19 (acre)
Final project impacts as listed in
September 7, 2005
correspondence from
Environmental Services, Inc
Tar -Pamlico Buffers
79,122 (square feet)
Final project impacts as listed in
permanent impacts
September 7, 2005
(also 12,632 square feet
correspondence from
temporary impacts)
Environmental Services, Inc
Open Water Impacts
1.21 (acres) wetland
Ford's Colony Rocky Mount
creation
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Planning Report, April 7, 2005
0.02 (acres) of permanent
Correspondence from Kimley-
fill
Horn dated September 23, 2005
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
,Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/40 1 Permit Application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of Land Resources has released the project;

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 4 of 7
September 26, 2005
Continuing Compliance:
5. Mr. Drew Mulhare and/or Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC, shall conduct construction
activities in a manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements
resulting from compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate
requirements of State law and federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws
are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or
federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the
Division may reevaluate and modify this Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d).
Before modifying the Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. Drew Mulhare and/or Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr. Drew
Mulhare and/or Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC in writing, shall be provided to the United
States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project;
Mitigation: (Buffers, Streams and Wetlands need details here)
6. Compensatory Mitigation
a. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
1) Ecosystem Enhancement Program to meet 1:1 wetland restoration/creation ratio
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts to wetlands as specified below. We
understand that you wish to make a payment to the Wetlands Restoration Fund
administered by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation
requirement to meet the 1:1 restoration/creation requirement. This has been determined
by the DWQ to be a suitable method to meet the mitigation requirement. Until the EEP
receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR — Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Office), no impacts specified in this Authorization Certificate shall occur. The
EEP should be contacted at [phone] if you have any questions concerning
payment into a restoration fund. You must make this payment within 60 days of the date
of this Certification or before impacts approved in this Certification occur, whichever
come first. Otherwise you must notify this Office within three weeks of the date this
Certification of the specific date (before impacts occur) that you will make this payment
for written approval by this Office. For accounting purposes, this Authorization
Certificate authorizes payment into the Wetlands Restoration Fund to meet the
following compensatory mitigation requirement:
2.19 acres riparian and 2.18 acres non -riparian wetland impacts.
2) On site to meet remaining onsite wetland mitigation requirements
A final compensatory wetland mitigation plan must be approved in writing by this Office
before any permanent building associated with the project is occupied for the additional
wetland mitigation proposed in the application and additional information provided to
NCDWQ. Additionally, the compensatory mitigation plan must be completely
constructed and implemented according to the plans approved by this Office within 5
years of this Certification. The mitigation must be maintained according to the approved

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 5 of 7
September 26, 2005
plan and permanently protected by the use of conservation easements or similar
protections. Any repairs or adjustments to the mitigation site must be made according to
the approved plan or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs
or adjustments.
b. Compensatory Stream and Buffer Mitigation
The stream and buffer restoration must be constructed, maintained, and monitored
according to the approved plans in the application and modifications to the application
(Stormwater Stream and Mitigation Planning Report, April 7, 2005). Any repairs or
adjustments to the site must be made according to the approved plans or must receive
written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments.
Stream and buffer mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts as specified
below. Additionally, the compensatory mitigation plan must be completely constructed
and implemented according to the plans approved by this Office by November 15, 2006
or as otherwise approved by this Office in writing. The final mitigation must provide at
Ieast 398 feet of successful perennial stream restoration according to the approved
plans. Additionally, a minimum of 5541 square feet of buffer mitigation is required for
the 2716 square feet of buffer impacts requiring mitigation as part of this stream
restoration project. The mitigation must be maintained according to the approved plan
and permanently protected by the use of conservation easements or similar protections.
Any repairs or adjustments to the mitigation site must be made according to the approved
plan or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments.
Any significant changes to the plan must be approved by this Office in writing before the
plan is implemented.
In order for this project to be used as compensatory mitigation for other specific projects,
you must obtain written approval from this Office. The request should include the amount
of stream length and buffer area credit requested for accounting purposes. Please specify
DWQ project No. 20041801 when making your request.
If the above stream and buffer restoration project is to be held, performed, and/or
provided by another entity such as but not limited to the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program or a mitigation banker, then the transaction must be approved by this Office in
writing before the transaction occurs. In order to receive written approval for this
transaction, it must be demonstrated to the Division that the mitigation requirements
specified in this Condition shall be completely and uniquely met.
Road Crossines:
7. Culvert Installation
Culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles
are not altered. Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions, pattern, and
longitudinal profile) must be maintained above and below locations of each culvert. - Culverts shall
be designed and installed to allow for aquatic life movement as well as to prevent head cutting of
the streams. If any of the existing pipes are or become perched, the appropriate stream grade shall
be re-established or, if the pipes installed in a perched manner, the pipes shall be removed and re-
installed correctly.

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 6 of 7
September 26, 2005
The establishment of native, woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques
must be used where practicable instead of rip rap or other bank hardening methods. If rip -rap is
necessary, it shall not be placed in the stream bed, unless specifically approved by the Division of
Water Quality.
Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement and be designed to
adequately accommodate high water or flood conditions.
Stormwater Management:
a) Before each development phase that is anticipated to exceed 30% impervious cover, including,
at a minimum, the 7 focus areas (as described in Appendix B and C of the "401 Water Quality
Certification - Stormwater Management Permit Application" dated May 11, 2005) is paved, final,
written stormwater management plans for that phase shall be approved in writing by the Division
of Water Quality's Wetlands Unit. The facilities must be designed to remove 85% TSS as well as
treat nitrogen in the runoff from each area. Also, before any permanent building or other
structure is occupied in each area, the facilities (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) for that area
shall be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management plan for that area (as
approved by the Wetlands Unit) shall be implemented. The structural stormwater practices as
approved by the Wetlands Unit as well as drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No
changes to the structural stormwater practices shall be made without written authorization from
the Division of Water Quality.
b) Before each development phase that is anticipated to be less than 30% impervious cover and is
outside the 7 focus areas (as described in Appendix H of the "401 Water Quality Certification -
Stormwater Management Permit Application" dated May 11, 2005) is paved, final, written
stormwater management plans for that phase shall be approved in writing by the Division of
Water Quality's Wetlands Unit. The facilities must be designed to provide diffuse flow through
the protected riparian buffers or designed to remove nitrogen and attenuate flow prior to
discharge. Also, before any permanent building or other structure is occupied in each area, the
facilities (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) for that area shall be constructed and operational,
and the stormwater management plan for that area (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) shall be
implemented. The structural stormwater practices as approved by the Wetlands Unit as well as
drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater
practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
Other conditions:
9. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of the project, the Applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return.it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project. Please send photographs
upstream and downstream of each culvert site to document correct installation along with the
Certificate of Completion form.

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 7 of 7
September 26, 2005
10. Deed Notifications
Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained jurisdictional wetlands,
waters and protective buffers in order to assure compliance for future wetland, water and buffer
impact. These mechanisms shall be put in place prior to impacting any wetlands, waters and/or
buffers approved for impact under this Certification Approval and Authorization Certificate. A
sample deed notification can be downloaded from the 40 1 /Wetlands Unit web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The text of the sample deed notification may be modified as
appropriate to suit to this project.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit. The Isolated Wetlands
Permit will expire upon the expiration date of IWGP100000 (September 30, 2008) or unless
otherwise rescinded by the Director of the Division of Water Quality.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If
modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the
modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 26th day of September 2005
DJWSION OF WATER QUAL?TY
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk

1=,ch;b,�
Reference: NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999
2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual Volumes I & II
B. Other Approaches
Other actions that result in demonstrable stream improvements may also be
eligible for stream mitigation crediting on a case -by -case basis. However, these measures
(BMPs or any other activity) must not be a requirement of a NPDES permit or other
regulatory requirement. These options would have to be beyond those measures required
by regulations and should be part of a local watershed restoration plan. These other
options can provide long-term protection for a stream segment or a watershed and
therefore have a role in stream mitigation. 'However, the US Army Corps of Engineers
and the NC'Division of Water Quality may limit the use of these other options in the
context of stream -mitigation since these agencies need to ensure that aquatic life uses are
being replaced. These options must receive case -by -case approval from the US Army
Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality and must include a provision` ^ r
for monitoring that -will demonstrate the water quality and aquatic life benefits of the
project. As such, projects'that target waters with impaired water quality such as-303(,d) ,
waters, closed SA waters and Nutrient Sensitive Waters'are more likely to.be•approved.
11. MONITORING
The purpose of monitoring is to determine the degree of success a mitigation
project has achieved in meeting the objectives of providing proper channel function and
increased habitat quality. Specific objectives must be included in a project design and
may also be evaluated. In general; monitoring data should provide the District and D WQ
with evidence that the goals of the project were -met. - Monitoring should be directed at
evaluating primary activities accomplished through mitigation projects. 'Monitoring
.secondary benefits or accomplishments may also be -appropriate for large-scale. projects,
when projects are done in ecologically important areas or when secondary benefits are a
primary objective. Secondary benefits are those that are not directly accomplished or
established during site construction. For example: a primary activity would he
constructing'a root wad revetment, the secondary benefit would be the enhancement of
aquatic populations. Three levels of monitoring will be required based on the complexity
of the mitigation project being proposed.
Upon completion of the project, an as=built channel survey shall be conducted. It
is recommended that stream surveys, for both project construction and -project
monitoring; follow the methodology'Contained in the USDA Forest Service Manual,
Stream.Channel Reference Sites (Harrelson, et.al,.1994).• The survey should document
the dimension, pattern and profile of the restored channel: Permanent cross -sections
should be established at an approximate -frequency of one per 20. (bankfull=width)
lengths,. In general, the. locations should'be selected to represent approximately 50%
pools'and 50% riffle areas. Flexibility in the location and frequency will be allowed for'
2% %-

-
�f.k�.y�-L1"
y'YL��v
r.
ryK'
cross -sections and should be based on best professional judgment. The selection of
locations should always include areas that may be predisposed for potential problems. In
the case of very narrow streams, two cross -sections per 1,000 If will generally be
sufficient. The as -built survey should also include photo documentation at all cross -
sections and structures, a plan view diagram, a longitudinal profile, vegetation
information and a pebble count for at least six cross -sections (or all cross sections if less
than six required for project). If the restored stream section is less than 3,000 If, the
longitudinal profile should include the entire 3,000 If, if the stream section is greater than
3,000 If, the profile should be conducted for either 30 % of the restored stream or 3,000 If
(whichever is greater). Subsequent annual surveys will be required per instructions on
the monitoring forms (biannual for photo documentation). It should be noted that
different levels of mitigation would require different levels of monitoring. The as -built
survey described above will generally be required only for Restoration and Enhancement
Level I projects. The following paragraphs describe the specific requirements for the
different levels of mitigation.
Monitoring Level I: This level of monitoring will apply to Restoration and Enhancement
Level I projects. Because these projects involve the greatest degree of complexity they, -
will require a more complex monitoring protocol. The required monitoring shall be a
performed each year for the 5-year monitoring period and no less than two bankfull fLRw
events must'be documented through the monitoring period. If less than two bankfuH.
events occur during the first 5 years, monitoring will continue until the second bankfulb
event is documented. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years.
In the event that the required bankfull events do riot occur during the five-year
monitoring period, the Corps and DWQ, in consultation with the resource agencies, may
determine that further monitoring is not required. It is suggested that all bankfull
occurrences be'monitored and reported through the required monitoring period:
Monitoring data collected at level I sites should include the following: reference photos,
plant survival analysis,. channel stability analysis, and biological data if specifically
required by. permit conditions. Biological sampling evaluates secondary impacts of
restoration projects. DWQ plans fo evaluate 80 projects across the state to determine the
benefits of these data in a -mitigation monitoring protocol (see "Interim; Internal
Technical Guide Summary — Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols For
Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects, dsted July 2002; Version 1.3) which is
available on DWQ's.website http://h2o.enr.state.nc,us/ncwetIands/. These data will be'
required for those projects that are recommended by DWQ. Biological data may be
required for other projects on a case -by -case basis. Data are to be collected prior to
coristfuction and for at least 3 years following construction. A 1-year.
recolonization/popu•lati.on 'adjustment time of biological monitoring following
construction is usually warranted. In addition, the yearly data should be collected during .
the same season. (Photo documentation will be required twice a year — summer and.
winter.) Deviations from:the required monitoring protocol will*generally not be
acceptable. However, proposed exceptions'will be -evaluated on a case -by -case basis by .
the District and DWQ, and will be coordinated with appropriate permit review agencies.

Monitoring Level 2: This level of monitoring will apply to Enhancement Level 2
projects. Because these projects will generally be on a smaller scale and less complex a
simpler protocol is required. Monitoring data at these sites should include the following:
reference photos and plant survival. Channel stability should also be evaluated when the
mitigation project alters the bankfull channel. Additional types of information may be
required from mitigating parties if recommended and justified by project reviewers. Data
must be collected each year for 5 years at the same time of year. No less than two
bankfull flow events must be documented through the required 5-year monitoring period.
If less than two bankfull events occur during the first 5 years, monitoring will continue
until the second bankfull event is documented. The bankfull events must occur during
separate monitoring years. It is suggested that all bankfull occurrences. be monitored and
reported through the required monitoring period. Deviations from this protocol may be
acceptable when they can be justified.
Monitoring Level 3: This level of monitoring will apply to mitigation consisting only of
preservation. Since the only action in this case is administrative, protecting a reach, a 5-
'Year monitoring plan is not required. However, reference photos should be taken and
provided to the District and DWQ. These should well document the reach, including tke
riparian zone being preserved. As for all photo reference sites, a detailed description of
the location at which the photo was taken should also be provided. Additional types of,
information may be required from mitigating parties if recommended and justified by
project reviewers.
Success Criteria.: As described above, this guidance requires three forms of monitoring
to evaluate the success of the project; photo documentation, ecological function, and
channel stability measurements. These criteria will be used to evaluate success by
considering the following:
Photo documentation
Channel aggradation or degradation -
Bank erosion
Success of riparian vegetation
Effectiveness of erosion control measures
Presence or absence of developing insiream bars (should be absent)
Ecological Function
Health and survival of vegetation (80% survival of planted species required after 5 years) .
Restoration reach should mimic upstream conditions (or reference.reach•when applicable)
Channel Stability
Should be insignificant change from the as -built dimension
Do changes represent a movement in the direction of instability (e.g; increased width to
depth ratio or a decreased width to •depth•ratio with decreased entrenchment ratio) or are
changes minor and represent an• increase.in stability (e.g. decreased width to depth ratio
without a decrease in entrenchment'ratio)?
Should -be little change frpm the as -built longitudinal profile
N3

Pool/riffle spacing should remain fairly constant
Pools should not be filling in (aggradation) or riffles starting to change to pools
(degradation)
Pebble count should show a change in the size of bed material toward a desired
composition.
Annual monitoring forms require as -built plans and current data. Monitoring reports
should contain a discussion of any deviations from as -built and an evaluation of the
significance of these deviations and whether they are indicative of a stabilizing or
destabilizing situation. Appendix II summarizes the measures of success, failure, and
required remedial actions.
Specific biological success criteria are currently a subject of applied research being
coordinated by the NC Division of Water Quality. Formal development and adoption of
biological success criteria (if any) will be done upon completion of that research.
a
i

E V4/
FORD'S
COLONY
A T R 0 C
K Y M 0 U N T
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
IMPACT NUMBER
7
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.02 acres
fJ Crd ENh-.V - "doW W-1cs
Land Nmft end DmbpmeM
IMPACTTYPE
SEWER IMPACT
BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA NA
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA NA
F mw
W. E
f04.7
1�0
- �7/1 —
09.7
41
/4
\J N
scft f=10a
1073 Bullard Court a Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 a 919.954.8200(o) * 919.954.8299(0 - [e-mail] -

FORD'S
COLONY
AT ROCKY
MOUNT
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
IMPACT NUMBER
8
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.03 acres
CH E4nwin - HydkW/ Hydrmf-
LaW PWvwig wd DevWwmed
IMPACTTYPE
SEWER IMPACT
BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA NA
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA NA
F—
--A
+
1�27.5
j
.........
ti
BMP
137.6
1073 Bullard Court a Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 * 919.954.8200(o) & 919.954.8299(0 * [e-mail]

NEWi
FORD' S
COLONY
_
AT ROCKY
MOUNT
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
IMPACTNUMBER
9
WETLAND IMPACTAREA 0.03aaes -
/'/.
'••f-
C E,4w.,ing • HY�9Yl Hy&-r-
M �����,�,,,�
IMPACTTYPE
SEWER IMPACT
BUFFER I IMPACT AREA 0.02-acres
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA 0.03 acres
\� 25 401\1 39
-
45
' B - / \ 4476
1
41
Tra'4ic < 42 \
43
�. z � .` yr . . • +v2z � � 1
9848
`� BNT / 97 //�•o `�Butfi 4 r>,�,,1 = \ 1
#ter Q e• 7 1,20`1 \ 1
r/• 'xl:i 'Y3•
137
130 ���/�' 95 /��\ `�\ w\ BNT
41
129 1131
l
93
7 - 32 l \ \ 92
L- 134- ► l 13990
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 9 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299(0 • [e-mail]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Applicant: Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Action ID: 200421182
Date: September 28, 2005
Waterway: Beech Branch
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, 404(B)(1) ANALYSIS, FINDING OF NO
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, AND STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
This document constitutes my Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant
Impact, Statement of Findings, and review and compliance determination according to the
404(b)(1) guidelines for the proposed work.
This permit action is being taken under authority delegated to the Wilmington District
Engineer by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers by Title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 325.8, pursuant to:
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
X Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
Section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953.
Location, Existing Site Conditions, Proiect Description, Changes to Proiect•
A. L"ation: The project, known as Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount (FORM), is located
on 1,150 acres of Land located on the west side of U.S. Highway 301, south of SR 1524
(Battleboro Road), nmth of Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina (36.0272° N 7T7765°
W). The project site includes, approximately 1.2 miles of Beech Branch and several of its
perennial and intermittent tributaries. Beech Branch flows into the Tar River, a tributary of the
Tar -Pamlico River, to Pamlico Sound and ultimately into the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 15
miles downstream of the project site.
B. Existing Site Conditions: The currently proposed impacts expand upon an existing
residential subdivision. The initial phase of the subdivision has been under construction for the
last 12 years. A Department of the Army (DA) nationwide permit authorized the previous
impacts. In September 1993, authorization for the use of Nationwide Permit 26 was provided to
the developers of Belmont Farms for impacts to 1.14 acres of wetlands for road crossings and lot
development. Compensatory mitigation was not required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) for the previous impacts, since nationwide permits authorized considerably more
impacts in 1993 compared to the present nationwide permits. The subdivision, including the
previous phase, is approximately 1,150 acres in size and is located in eastern Nash County. The
surrounding land is typical of the North Carolina upper coastal plain and contains a wide variety

of aquatic environments, from small headwater streams and wetland seeps to a large floodplain
system along the main course of Beech Branch. Beech Branch bisects the site and is crossed by
the proposed road system. There are also two open water bodies on the property, a small pond
located on an unnamed tributary, which drains into the larger lake located on Beech Branch. The
site has historically been used for agricultural or silviculture purposes. The majority of the
streams on the site flow through wooded valleys with narrow bands of riparian wetlands
bordering the streams and in some instances, beaver activity has expanded the width of the
wetlands. Generally these areas support mature hardwood or mixed pine and hardwood forests.
In these areas the streams are relatively stable, exhibiting well defined bed and bank
characteristics, meanders, undercut banks, reduced soils, presence of fish, amphibians and
benthic macroinvertebrates, etc. They show little sign of degradation and have maintained their
integrity, and appear to be providing habitat, water quality, and hydrologic functions at a
sustainable level.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of Nash County
(1990) maps majority of the soils across the project site within the uplands as either Norfolk or
Goldsboro. Wetland areas on the site are underlain by Rains soils in non -riparian areas and by
either Rains or Bibb adjacent to the streams in the riparian wetlands. The upland portions of the
site can be characterized as either recently abandoned pasture or cropland or woodland with a
variety of hardwood and pine trees and herbaceous species common to North Carolina's upper
coastal plain, including tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), hickory (Carya spp.), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white
oak (Quercus alba), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), dogwood (Cornus florida), ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), vacciniums (Vaccinium spp.), and vibumums (Viburnum spp.).
Additionally, a variety of other species are found along the stream channels and in the floodplain
of the site, including willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
Chinese privette (Ligustrum sinense), holly (Ilex spp.), netted chain fern (Woodwardia aereolata),
and microstegium (Microstegium vimineum).
The three listed species or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 for Nash County include the red -cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), and the Tar
spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The applicant's biologists conducted a detailed habitat
assessment of the Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount site in August 2004. While it was determined
that the project would have no effect upon the red cockaded woodpecker based upon a lack of
suitable habitat, it was found that the site does contain suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge
mussel and Tar spinymussel in a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) dated
December 3, 2004. Accordingly, the applicant conducted a survey and requested concurrence
that the project is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" either the Tar spinymussel or the dwarf
wedge mussel. Subsequently, in a letter dated May 19, 2005, USFWS concurred that the project
will not impact endangered species, provided appropriate sedimentation and erosion control
measures are implemented, along with placing conservation mechanisms on remaining wetlands
and streams. Following a review of the National Register of Historic Places, and intensive
cultural resource investigation at Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, and subsequent coordination
2

with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that the subject project would not affect
either eligible or listed properties on the National Register of Historic Places, provided that a
plan titled "Historic Hedge Buffer" dated December 3, 2004, is implemented as proposed, to
prevent an adverse impact upon the Dr. Franklin Hart Farm. See Section V (B) for a complete
discussion of the comments received and subsequent actions taken. The project is located within
the 100-year floodplain of Beech Branch, which is regulated by Executive Order 11988,
Floodplain Management, which recognizes the importance of such areas in minimizing the
impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare..
C. Project Description: The proposed project involves the construction of six road
crossings for the development of a mixed -use residential and commercial subdivision. An
individual permit application for the proposed work was received on November 4, 2004 and put
out on public notice on November 12, 2004.
The road infrastructure designed for Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount includes 32 road
crossings, impacting jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands. The primary
road serves as the main transportation corridor, with the other proposed roads diverging off the
main corridor to serve the residential areas, amenities, golf course, and clubhouse. A total of 1.6
acres of riparian wetlands,.1.0 non -riparian wetlands, and 0.19 acre of isolated wetlands would
be impacted by road construction. In addition, the transportation infrastructure would impact 348
linear feet of perennial stream and 620 linear feet of intermittent stream channel, which exhibits
important aquatic function, would be impacted by the proposed road infrastructure.
Jurisdictional impacts associated with the development of the fold course would involve
the filling of a total of 1.12 acres of riparian wetlands and 1.21 acres of non -riparian wetlands for
golf course and driving range construction. An additional 0.68 acre of wetlands would be
mechanically landcleared, with the stumps removed and another 0.85 acres of wetlands would be
cleared of woody vegetation, yet the stumps would be left undisturbed to allow for play over
these impacted wetlands areas. Mechanically cleared areas would be allowed to re -vegetate with
low -growing wetland vegetation, which would routinely be maintained by either hand or mowing
to keep it at a proper height for golfing. Furthermore, a total of 717 linear feet of stream channel
would be impacted not only from the construction of the golf course, but also the practice range
at Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount. Of the 717 linear feet of stream channel to be impacted by the
proposed project, 50 linear feet of perennial stream and 565 linear feet of intermittent stream
channel would facilitate construction of the golf course and driving range, with the remaining 82
linear feet of perennial stream channel and 20 linear feet of intermittent stream channels to be
bridged for the construction of cart paths.
Finally, the proposed sewerline installation would impact 0.25 acre of wetland and 60 linear feet
of perennial stream channel would be temporarily impacted via mechanized landclearing,
excavation, and subsequent backfilling.
The FCRM project would entail unavoidable impacts to riparian and non -riparian
palustrine forested (PFO), Palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS), and palustrine emergent (PEM)
wetlands. Wetland impacts would result from road crossings, golf course fairway construction,
3

and driving range construction. The types of wetland impacts consist of clear/fill, clear/remove
stumps, clear/leave stumps, and hand clear vegetation. Wetland _fill is being proposed only in
those areas where the other types of impacts cannot be used due to safety or engineering reasons.
Wetland impacts associated with road crossings would be filled. Certain fairway impacts must
also be filled to provide for a playable golf course. The FCRM project would also entail
unavoidable impacts to intermittent and perennial stream channels, lacustrine unconsolidated
bottom (LUB) and palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) wetlands. Stream impacts would
result from road crossings, golf course fairway construction, and driving range construction.
No jurisdictional wetland or stream impacts would result from residential lot
development. Those areas that contain wetlands adjacent to lots would be preserved as open
space by FORM. FCRM would not allow any wetland fill for residential lots.
To develop the FCRM community it was determined that the best and most appropriate
location for the main entrance road should be off of Highway 301. The site for the entrance was
chosen because of the existing traffic light at this location. The club site was chosen to be just to
the north of the entrance to provide easy access to patrons. The road alignment defined the
remainder of the site design in that efforts were made to avoid the buffered streams and wetland
impacts where practicable throughout the project study area. The road network is based on the
concept of a collector road (spine road) running throughout the community with community pods
feeding off of it. To insure access to the golf course and adequate entrances for health, safety,
and welfare of the residents, numerous entrances have been designed into the plan. One entrance
is the existing entrance off of Bishops Road, which serves the southern portions of the
community. The second is to the north off of Red Oak-Battleboro Road, which serves the
northern portion of the community. The third entrance is a fire entrance to the west, and the final
and main entrance is off of Highway 301. This 301 entrance would be the main entrance to the
community. It was chosen for its ease of access into this community off of this main corridor
into and out of Rocky Mount. Additionally, there is an existing traffic light at this location.
The appropriate roadway design is critical to allow the remainder of the project study area
to be properly planned and designed. The design team believes that the roadway design
presented in this permit application and report represents the most practicable and least
environmentally damaging alternative while still maintaining the applicant's purpose and need.
Completely avoiding wetland and stream impacts from road crossings is not possible on this
property. There are 83+ acres of on -site wetland, 19,800 feet of stream channel, and 91+ acres
of open water within the boundaries of FCRM. The position of the wetlands and streams in the
landscape makes it virtually impossible to avoid any jurisdictional impacts. The design team has
made tremendous efforts to reduce the amount of unavoidable impacts to wetlands, streams, and
riparian buffers. Road alignments have been modified where feasible. Additionally, the
applicant has purchased additional land in order to reduce the environmental impacts in the
vicinity of Wetland 29 and Stream 11. Without this additional land, the necessary road system
would have crossed Wetland 29, which is a relatively high quality system. Crossings have been
designed to pass over wetlands at their narrowest point in most instances. Road Crossing 7 has
been eliminated completely from the proposed development plan.
51

Roadway Crossing 1
The main road was routed to the north to avoid Belmont Lake. Its path is parallel to the
buffered stream (S6), which flows into Belmont Lake. The road alignment at this point traverses
to the east of the stream until it reaches the upper end of the buffered stream. The road provides
access to the club site, which is to the northeast. The club's location was chosen for ease of
access from this road and Highway 301. The club location is set so that there is ease of access to
the Driving Range and the first tee box. This is most important for control of golf play.
Therefore, the road was routed to pass between the golf tee box and the stream and its buffer.
The buffer is only slightly encroached upon. As a consequence of avoiding the stream and
allowing golf to play directly from the back of the club, the wetland impact (R-W 1) shown is
necessary. The split road, which increases the impact, is necessary for traffic reasons because it
is just past the gatehouse location. No other options were looked at for this crossing because of
the need for access to the golf tee from the club and the desire to avoid the stream impact.
Impacts to Wetland 10 (W 10) have been minimized as much as practicable. This impact is to
0.07 acre of a PFO1/4 non -riparian wetland.
Roadway Crossing 2
Stream and wetland impacts are necessary to provide access around the community with a
collector road. This roadway impact was designed so as to minimize the environmental impact.
This collector road must be installed to provide secured access to the residents. This impact
location was chosen because it was deemed the least environmentally significant area in the
stream channel. At this location the stream has little or no vegetation surrounding it because it is
passing under a 60' right of way for a major overhead power line. The crossing location allows
for the golf hole as well as the road to pass under the power lines without conflict to the existing
power poles. There is stream impact; buffer impact and wetland impact at this location but the
impact to the vegetation is minimal. Impacts to W7 and S2a have been minimized as much as
practicable. This crossing would be piped and filled. This crossing would impact 0.09 acre of a
PSS 1 riparian wetland and would impact 61 linear feet of intermittent stream channel with
important aquatic function.
Roadway Crossing 3
Wetland and stream impacts would result from Roadway Crossing 3. The purpose of
roadway crossing 3 is to provide access to the areas north of the second and first holes. Access
had to be provided between Holes 1 and 2. Additional access was provided to the north of Hole
2, but both are required to for safety purposes. Hole number 1 has been routed to avoid a stream
and buffer impact. To minimize excessive drive time between holes, Hole number two's tee box
is located within 400 feet of the number one green. In accordance to PGA guidelines any
distance over 600 feet is deemed excessive. Note that there are numerous locations on this golf
course where drive distances are excessive and therefore wherever possible the drive distances
have been kept to within PGA guidelines. This location is one such distance. To minimize
wetland disturbance on Hole number 2 the tee box has been moved away from the buffered
stream.
I

However, this crossing is necessary to allow access to the north. It has been designed as
far up on the stream as possible yet still allowing for carve radii that meet the City of Rocky
Mount standards. Impacts to W7 and S3 have been minimized as much as practicable. The
crossing would be piped and filled. This impact is to 0.05 acre of a PFO1/4 riparian wetland and
would impact 51 linear feet of intermittent stream channel requiring mitigation.
Roadway Crossing 4
Wetland impacts would result from Roadway Crossing 4. The road alignment in this area
was designed to allow for golf home sites to back up to the golf course. At this location there is a
wetland impact but no stream impact. If the road were moved further south, the wetland impact
would decrease, however, a stream impact would then result also. Impacts to streams have been
avoided on this crossing and the wetland impact has been minimized. This impact is to 0.02 acre
of a PFO1/4 non -riparian wetland.
Roadway Crossing 5
Wetland impact would result from Roadway Crossing 5. The least environmentally
sensitive area in this wetland system appears to be under the existing power line. Access to the
lots east of the power line is necessary. The cul-de-sac was placed under the power line to
maximize lot layout. Impacts to Wetland 9 (W9) have been minimized. This impact is to 0.05
acre of a P S S 1 non -riparian wetland.
Roadway Crossing 6
Wetland 4 (W4) has been verified as an isolated wetland by the ACOE. Portions of this
wetland are proposed for fill to allow for street construction north of Red Oak-Battleboro Road.
ACOE does not currently regulate discharges to isolated wetlands. DWQ is currently responsible
for regulating impacts to isolated wetlands. This impact is to 0.07 acre of a PFO 1 non -riparian
wetland.
Road Crossing 7
Road Crossing 7 has been eliminated from the FCRM development plan.
Road Crossing 8
Various areas of impact were investigated for this crossing. Because of city
requirements for road intersection alignments and the design criteria for neo-traditional
community development, this intersection must be developed as shown. It is envisioned that a
trail system would be built along the back of the lots to the east of Wetland 2 (W2) as an amenity
to the community. Additionally, it is envisioned that a park would be built in the area marked
open space. This impact would be piped and filled. These impacts are to 0.08 acre of PF01/4
non -riparian wetlands.
Road Crossing 9
Wetland 3 (W3) would be affected by roadway crossings. Two access points are required
for safety purposes. Road Crossing 9 involves a wetland crossing and a stream crossing.
Shifting the crossing to the south would meet minimum radii criteria and shifting the crossing to
:1

the north would place the road directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the project study
area. The lots, which are presently shown to the Past, would not be platted in the buffer as per
the development guidelines. The impact would be piped and filled. This impact is to 0.14 acre
of a PF01 riparian wetland and would impact 69 linear feet of intermittent stream channel.
Road Crossing 10 & 11
Road Crossings 10 and 11 continue the connectivity along the north property boundary
and would affect Wetland 1 (W1) and Wetland 2 (W2). This crossing location was chosen to
because it took advantage of the existing farm road crossing and minimized wetland impacts.
Being that the farm road has already impacted the connectivity of W 1 and W2, it was deemed the
most appropriate location for the access point. These impacts are to0.01 acre of a PF01 riparian
wetland.
Road Crossing 12
This crossing is on the main collector road for the community. Various locations were
investigated for this road crossing. Upon design of the community it was determined that three
elements needed to cross or touch this tributary (S 11), the 3rd hole, the 16th hole and a road
crossing. Impacts to Wetland 29 (W29) originally exceeded one acre under the original design
plan. Avoidance and minimization opportunities were investigated and in June 2004, 210 acres
were purchased to the west to allow for a more open development plan and to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts. The necessary golf course routing became the driving force for
the location of Hole 16 and Road Crossing 12. Hole 3 has to be in close proximity to Hole 4,
which is now on newly purchased land. Hole 3 now stops short of impacting any jurisdictional.
areas. Road Crossing 12 was shifted to the northwest with the purchase of the additional land.
This allowed the potential impacts in W29 to be avoided. Currently, only a stream crossing of
S 11 is proposed, which would impact 60 linear feet of a perennial stream.
Road Crossing 13
A small finger of Wetland 25 (W25) would be affected by Road Crossing 13 in order to
avoid a larger wetland impact to the northeast. In order to preserve the wetlands to the northeast
the access to this area of the community must run along this ridgeline. The road splits between
the 15th fairway and the 16th tee. The area located to the southwest of this impact would be left as
open space to allow access from the 15th fairway to the 16th tee. This impact is to 0.05 acre of a
PF01 non -riparian wetland.
Road Crossing 14
These two peninsulas were created in 1978 to allow access from the southern side of the
lake to the northern side of the lake. Ford's Colony would use the existing peninsulas to provide
access as originally intended in 1978. There are jurisdictional impacts at this crossing location,
but no other option for crossing the lake exists that would incur a smaller impact. This crossing,
along with Crossings 18 & 19, are being required by the City of Rocky Mount for safety issues.
This crossing would also serve as access for golf carts from Hole 13 to Hole 14. The crossing
would be designed as a clear span structure with bench seats at the ends of the peninsulas, which
would allow for movement of aquatic life and small boat traffic from the main lake to the small
7

lake. The design of the clear span would be designed so as to not impact or restrict normal water
flows. The sides of the peninsulas would be formed with concrete sides and a stone/brick look
veneer as necessary to provide adequate road width. This crossing cannot be completely
avoided and jurisdictional impacts at this crossing have been minimized as much as practicable.
In addition, to the open water (LUB) that would be partially filled and spanned, impacting 0.02
acre of open water as indicated by correspondence dated September 23. 2005. There would be
0.27 acre of impact to a PFO1 riparian wetland.
Road Crossing 15
This crossing is necessary for the completion of the collector road. This location was
chosen to minimize the impact to Wetland 47 (W47). Shifting to the north would incur a greater
impact and shifting to the south would put the road surface closer to the lake and it would still
impact wetlands. This crossing cannot be completely avoided and the design minimizes impact
to W47. This impact is to 0.05 acre of a PFO1 non -riparian wetland.
Road Crossing 16 & 17
Various options were looked at for this wetland (W51) and stream (523, S24) crossing,
however this location was deemed the most appropriate because it uses the narrowest point of the
wetland, while still allowing the designer to meet maximum curvature guidelines. Had the road
been moved to the north it would have affected a greater amount of wetlands to the east as it
approaches the curve. Shifting the road alignment to the south would have affected and even
greater amount of wetlands. This wetland crossing cannot be completely avoided and the
designer has demonstrated minimization of jurisdictional impacts. The wetlands to be impacted
consist of a 0.01-acre of a PFO1 non -riparian wetland at crossing 16 and 0.18 acre of riparian
wetlands. This crossing would impact 165 linear feet of intermittent stream channels (S23, S24).
Road Crossing 18 & 19
The collector road must cross over this wetland (W53) and stream system (S25) for
health, safety, and welfare issues. The road alignment through this area is designed to be at the
minimum curvature for the collector road. Shifting the crossing to the southeast would incur a
greater impact to this wetland system. Shifting to the northwest is not possible because of
adjacent property boundary. Additional land has already been purchased so the curve could be
designed to minimize jurisdictional impacts. Completely avoiding this crossing is not possible
and the designer has minimized the impact amount as much as is practicable while maintaining a
safe roadway. W53 is one of the higher quality wetlands on the subject property. This wetland
impact is to 0.32 acre of a PFO 1 riparian wetland; however, the portion of W53 is non -riparian
where Road Crossing 19 occurs and would impact 0.16 acre. This bottomland hardwood system
serves as the floodplain for Beech Branch. Crossing 18 would impact 61 linear feet of S25,
which is a perennial stream.
Road Crossing 20
Road Crossing 20 utilizes an area that has previously been used for farm equipment
crossing connecting two agriculture fields. A small portion of Wetland 64 (W64) and Stream
29b (S29b) would be affected by this crossing. Shifting the crossing either to the west or to the

east would incur greater jurisdictional impacts due to existing wetlands. This location represents
the least damaging alternative for Road Crossing 20. The curvature of this crossing is the
maximum allowed by the City of Rocky Mount. This impact is 0.02 acre of a PFO1 riparian
wetland and 118 linear feet of a perennial stream channel. The impact would be piped and filled.
The 25-year storm would pass under the road. The 50-year or greater storm would pass over the
road.
Road Crossing 21
Road Crossing 21 would impact a portion of Wetland 56 (W56). The proposed location
of this impact is determined by the need for a 100-foot tangent between these two reverse curves.
Shifting this crossing to the north would reduce the amount of wetland impact slightly, but it
would not allow for the maximum 100-foot tangent between curves. It would also reduce the
number of usable lots in this area based on the current lot layout. Shifting the crossing to the
south would incur greater wetland impact and not meet the 100-foot maximum tangent
requirement. The impact is to 0.24 acre of a P1701/4 non -riparian wetland.
Road Crossing 22
Road Crossing 22 was designed to allow access to this area of the community. A small
portion of Wetland 53 (W53) would be affected by the crossing. The crossing location site was
chosen with minimal jurisdictional impact in mind. Shifting the crossing to the east would incur
greater wetland impact. Shifting the crossing to the west would disrupt the lot layout of this
particular area. The impact has been minimized as much as is practicable for this location. A
previous version of this crossing would have impacted 0.07 acre. The current impact is 0.03
acre. The impact is to 0.03 acre of a PFO1 non -riparian wetland.
Road Crossing 23
Certain jurisdictional impacts in this area were unavoidable because of the need to
coordinate between the golf course routing and the road alignment through this area of the Ford's
Colony community. Road Crossing 23 would affect a portion of Wetland 53 (W53) and Stream
S22b (S22b). This crossing location was chosen in order to achieve the proper road alignment,
golf course routing, and proper curvatures. It was determined that the impact of the golf course
on various wetland areas was less than certain road impacts because certain golf impacts can be
managed so as to keep wetland vegetation intact. Road Crossing 23 does not cross W53 at its
narrowest point, however, shifting to that narrowest point would cause a greater wetland impact
for Wetland Crossing 25, which is also on W53. This particular crossing would impact a portion
of W53 that can be classified as a PF01/4 riparian wetland and consists of 0.2 acre and would
impact and 91 linear feet intermittent channel.
Road Crossing 24
Wetland 53 (W53) would be affected by this crossing at this location because it is an area
of minimal impact and the area allows for the minimum curvature. Access from the east was not
practicable due to the location of Hole 13. Hole 13 can not be shortened to allow roadway
access because it needs to be as close the bridge structure as possible to allow for access to Hole
14, which is already approximately 1500 feet away. This impact cannot be avoided and has been
9

minimized as much as is practicable while still maintaining the project's purpose and need. This
particular crossing would impact 0,05 acre of W53 that can be classified as a PFO1nor_-riparian
wetland.
Road Crossing 25
Necessary road curvatures dictated the location of this impact. It is located in an area of
minimal impact in Wetland 53 (W53) based on the remainder of the proposed activities in this
area. Shifting the crossing to the southwest or to the northeast would incur greater impacts to
W53. Straightening of this road was investigated, however the wetland impact amount would
have moved an equivalent area from Road Crossing 23 to Road Crossing 25. This particular
crossing would impact 0.19 acre of W53, which can be classified as a PFO1 non -riparian
wetland.
Road Crossing 26
The existing Belmont Farms Parkway must be realigned to allow for a `T' intersection
with the new collector road. The curvature of the road is a continuation of the existing curve. As
a consequence, the upper reaches of an intermittent stream (S 18) are affected along with a small
area of Wetland 42 (W42). This stream only exists at the site shown and is at the outlet of an
existing pipe under Belmont Farms Parkway. The small stream channel reverts to sheet flow as
W42 moves toward the lake and then becomes redefined approximately 200 feet downstream.
This impact is to 0.01 acre of a PSSI riparian wetland.
Road Crossing 27
Wetland 38 (W38) has been verified as an isolated wetland by ACOE. Road Crossing 27
would impact a portion of W38. Shifting this crossing to the north would place the road too
close to the lake and lots would be lost. Shifting to the south would place the road along the
property boundary. This impact is to 0.12 acre a PFO1 non -riparian isolated wetland.
Road Crossing 28 & 29
These impacts are necessary to provide access from the existing Belmont Farms
community to the clubhouse site. Both impacts are stream crossings: Stream 13 (S 13) and
Stream 14 (S 14). Road Crossing 28 would impact 59 linear feet of perennial stream and buffer
crossing and Road Crossing 29 would impact 50 linear feet of perennial stream. S 13 handles
drainage from an existing BMP built behind the frontage lots along Highway 301. This BMP was
constructed for the Food Lion shopping center runoff. Additionally, S 13 receives water from the
farm ditches to the southeast and the playing fields of North Carolina Wesleyan College. S 14
receives runoff from Highway 301 and the roadside ditches from the properties on the east side
of Highway 301. Portions of S13 and S14 would be piped and filled as a result of Road
Crossings 28 and 29.
Road Crossing 30
Road Crossing 30 is necessary to allow for connectivity from the older portions of the
community to the clubhouse site. This is a gated community and control would be placed at the
end of this road where it meets the entrance road off of Highway 301. Connectivity behind the

gatehouse is a requirement of the developer and also required by the City of Rocky Mount for
safety issues. A portion of Wetland 16 (W16) and Stream 9 (S9) would be affected by this
crossing. This crossing would be handled similar to Road Crossing 14; an open span bridge
structure with bench seat and bulkheading. Impacts to S9 (Beech Branch) would result from
shading and clearing of streamside vegetation. No actual in -water work is anticipated. Avoiding
these jurisdictional impacts is not possible because of the connectivity requirement; however, the
impacts to the wetlands have been minimized. This crossing would impact 0.07 acre of a PFO 1
riparian wetland. S9 is a perennial channel that will be spanned with a bottomless arch culvert.
Road Crossing 31
This crossing of 51 linear feet of intermittent stream channel is necessary to allow access
to the small development area to the north of the crossing. The stream (S32) and buffer impact is
at the upper most reaches of the intermittent stream and a BMP site is proposed to treat any
runoff prior to it reaching the stream. A stormwater feature, as verified by ACOE and DWQ,
occurs in this drainage corridor and converges with S32 below the proposed impact area.
Road Crossing 32
Road Crossing 32 would impact 0.11 acre of Wetland 56 (W56) and 50 linear feet of an
unflagged intermittent channel along the southern boundary of FORM. This crossing is intended
to allow access to a 50-acre parcel currently located south of FORM. This parcel may become
part of the overall FCRM site development plan.
Road Crossing 33
Road Crossing 32 would impact 0.03 acre of Wetland 56 (W56) and 50 linear feet of an
unflagged intermittent channel along the southern boundary of FORM. This crossing is intended
to allow access to a 50-acre parcel currently located south of FORM. This parcel may become
part of the overall FCRM site development plan.
Summary of the Wetland Impacts from Roadways
The roadway system designed for FCRM includes thirty-two (32) jurisdictional area
crossings (Crossing 7 eliminated). The primary spine road serves as the main transportation
corridor from which the other roads diverge to serve the residential areas. A total of 1.6 acres of
riparian wetlands and 1.0 acre of non -riparian wetlands would be impacted by road construction.
Approximately 0.19 acre of isolated wetlands would also be affected by road construction. The
largest individual wetland impact is 0.32 acre and the smallest is approximately 0.01 acre.
Approximately 1.9 acres of the impacts are to PF01 wetlands, 0.7 acre to PF01/4 wetlands, and
0.1 acre to P S S 1 wetlands.
The functional assessment provides a numerical score for wetlands ranging from 0-41.
Those wetlands with scores of 20 or higher represent the medium to high quality wetlands.
Wetlands with scores less than 20 represent lower quality wetlands that may have been
previously affected by anthropogenic activity. Some non -riparian wetlands scored higher than
some areas of riparian wetlands depending on the condition of the assessed area. Non -riparian
wetlands and isolated wetlands are valuable for as water quality filters, water storage areas,
11

nutrient sinks, and as terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat. Approximately 1.7 acres of impact
are proposed for wetlands that scored 20 or greater as compared to approximately 0.9 acres of
impact proposed for wetlands that scored less than 20.
Compensatory mitigation would be required for impacts to the 1.6 acres of riparian and
1.0 acres of non -riparian wetlands. Mitigation may not be required for the 0.19 acre of isolated
wetland impact pursuant to current ACOE and DWQ guidelines. ACOE does not regulate
impacts to isolated wetlands. DWQ requires mitigation for isolated wetlands when the impacts
meet or exceed 1/3 acre east of I-95.
Surface Water Impacts from Roadways
Approximately 1,018 linear feet of stream channel and 0.02 acre of open water would be
affected as a result of the 33 road crossings associated with the FCRM project. The stream
impacts comprise 620 feet of intermittent stream and 398 feet of perennial stream. It has been
determined that all of the intermittent stream impacts would require mitigation. Approximately
50 feet of perennial total would be completely spanned through bridging and no direct in -water
impacts would result. The 0.02-acre of surface water associated with Belmont Lake would be
filled with the remaining 0.03 acre spanned by a bottomless arch culvert. Mitigation would be
required for 348 feet of perennial channel and 620 feet of intermittent channel.
The average ACOE score for these streams that are proposed for impact is as follows:
intermittent = 52.8, perennial = 59.3. The average DWQ score for those streams that are
proposed for impact are as follow: intermittent = 20.3, perennial = 28.5. These scores indicate a
slightly higher functional value for the on -site perennial streams; however, the intermittent
channels are also important to the overall aquatic ecosystem. The primary differences between
the on -site perennial and intermittent streams as related to these quantitative scores are floodplain
development, in -stream habitat, and hydrologic source and hydroperiod.
The individual surface water impacts resulting from the road construction are depicted in
graphics provided in Figures 4a-4b1b. The impact areas have been labeled according to the Road
Crossing Key Sheet (Figure 4) and the large-scale plan in Appendix IV. Table 1 contains the
surface water impact data for the road crossings. Each impact area is labeled according to the
key map and color site plan. Additional information in the table includes stream type, impact
amount, and buffers. Typical culvert details are provided in Section 14.
Golf Course and Practice Range
Successful golf courses share common traits. They are challenging, yet fair and playable
for golfers of all abilities. They are aesthetically pleasing and picturesque. They are sensitive to
the environment: minimizing earthwork and impacts to wetlands, streams and ponds. The goal
for the design of the FCRM Golf Course is to score high marks in each of these aspects.
To make a golf course playable and fair for beginners, juniors and senior golfers, "forced
carries" must be minimized. A "forced carry" is defined as when a golfer has no other choice
than to fly the ball in the air over a hazard (such as a sand bunker, pond, or wetland) to get to the
12

green. Since many beginners, juniors and seniors have trouble getting the ball airborne, these
"forced carries" must be minimized. Otherwise, the challenge would become unfair; players
would loose a number of balls, become frustrated, and not enjoy the golf course. As a rule of
thumb, players from the most forward tees should not be required to hit the ball more than 30-50
yards in the air. Players using the second forward tees should not be forced to carry the ball more
than 80-100 yards. These short, forced carries are acceptable on tee shots where the players can
use a tee to help get the ball airborne. But on approach shots, where the ball is hit directly from
the ground, it is best to eliminate forced carries completely and allow the golfer to hit the ball
across the ground to get to the target. Players should never be required to hit the ball over trees.
When a proposed project site has a significant amount of forested wetlands, reducing the
forced carries while keeping wetland and buffer impacts to a minimum is challenging. For
marketing purposes we need to construct a golf course that measures at least 7,000 yards from
the back tees. With today's technology, courses under 7,000 yards are considered short and are
often less appealing to some of the better players. To achieve this length and make the course
playable, certain jurisdictional impacts are unavoidable.
Avoidance and Minimization
In the process of routing the golf course, the design team went to great lengths to avoid
impacts where practicable and minimize the unavoidable impacts on wetlands, streams, and
buffers. One method used to minimize the amount of wetland fill associated with golf course
construction is to clear wetland areas and leave them to revegetated with low -growing wetland
plants. This eliminates the need to fill an area while eliminating the flyover obstacle (i.e. trees).
The current golf course design has three types of wetland impacts: clear and fill, clear and
remove stumps, clear and leave stumps. Clear and fill along with clear and remove stumps both
constitute a jurisdictional wetland impact because of discharge of material into a water of the
United States. Clearing and leaving the stumps is a type of wetland conversion and should not be
considered a discharge into waters of the United States assuming the soil surface is left
undisturbed. Impacts resulting from clearing and leaving the stumps can be quantified as it
relates to wetland conversion and compensatory mitigation can be assessed on wetland
conversion, if it is a significant amount.
Pre -Application Golf Course Design
This original plan was presented to ACOE during a meeting on 28 June 2004 and to DWQ on 24
June 2004. Both agencies indicated that there were numerous opportunities to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts. The proposed wetland and stream impacts depicted on previous
golf course designs were as follows:
Impacts from Original Plan
Wetland fill +/-3.56 acres
Wetland clear/stump +/-1.11 acres
Wetland clear/leave stumps +/-3.02 acres
Stream impact +/-2450 feet
(through direct impact or clearing of streamside vegetation)
13

Riparian buffer impact +/-6100 feet
The total amount of discharge to Section 404 wetlands under this plan is 4.67 acres
(includes wetland/clear stumps). The overall wetland and stream impacts were considerably
greater under this earlier design, and early meetings with both ACOE and DWQ revealed
additional opportunities to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, particularly to streams.
The design team took the agency comments very seriously and set out immediately to redesign
the golf course so that jurisdictional impacts could be reduced and/or completely eliminated in
some areas.
Public Notice Golf Course Design
The current golf course design represents 3 to 4 months of intensive design and redesign
to develop a championship quality golf course that is both playable to the average golfer and
challenging to the more experienced golfer. David Johnson Golf Design has designed this course
to integrate with the natural beauty of the FCRM property. Large forested tracts are being left
undisturbed adjacent to many of the fairways and greens. Natural wetland areas and water
hazards are being utilized in the current design and add to the natural setting of the golf course.
Impacts from Current Plan
Wetland fill
2.33 acres
Wetland clear/stump
0.68 acres
Wetland clear/leave stumps
0.85 acres
Stream impact
717 feet
Riparian buffer impact
18,677 feet'
The total amount of discharge to Section 404 wetlands under this plan is 3.86 acres
(includes wetland/clear stumps). This is the most current plan and is what is proposed in this
permit application. Wetland fill has been reduced by approximately 0.8 acre; wetland clearing
has been reduced by approximately 2.5 acres. Stream impacts have been reduced approximately
1,733 feet. riparian buffer impacts have been reduced by over 6 acres from the original golf
course plan.
Golf Course Impacts
The following is a hole -by -hole account of the proposed wetland and buffer impacts for
the FCRM Golf Course. All of the proposed impacts are either to make the course fair and
playable for golfers of all abilities or to address safety concerns.
A summary of the golf course impacts as provided by David Johnson Golf Design,
McBride Hess Design Group, and ESI is provided in this section. The individual golf course
impact graphics referenced to the golf course impact Key Map (Figure 5) and the large-scale
color key map provided in Appendix IV. Golf course impacts are labeled as G-W1, G-W2, etc.,
and golf course stream impacts are labeled as G-S1, G-S2, etc. Buffer impacts are labeled as G-
BF1, G-BF2, etc. Impacts are also referenced back to the original wetland and stream delineation
numbers that are also provided on the delineation plats in Appendix IV. Details of individual
14

golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 1
The first hole on a golf course is typically one of the easier holes on the course in which
the player is allowed a chance to warm up and settle their nerves. It is critical to make a good
first impression on the golfer and not get them frustrated early on. Therefore, it is imperative to
give the players the option of playing the entire hole along the ground. To do so, we propose to
clear and stump (no fill) 0.15 acres of Wetland 10 (W 10) in front of the tees. A wetland seed
mix would be used to revegetate this area with lower growing wetland vegetation that would not
obstruct long views. A bridge crossing over Wetland 7 (W7) would be necessary for golf carts to
cross from #1 green to 42 tee. This bridge crossing would have a 0.05-acre wetland impact to
W7 and 20 feet to Stream S2a (S2a) would be bridged. W 10 can be described as 0.15 acre of a
PFO1 non -riparian wetland. W7 is 0.05 acre of a PFOl riparian wetland. S2a is an intermittent
channel that is not buffered at the proposed crossing location.
Hole 2
A portion of W7 is proposed for fill in order to construct Hole 2. The team proposes
clearing and filling 0.42 acres of W7 in front of the tees for several reasons. First, if the wetlands
remain, they would obscure part of the landing area for the tee shot, resulting in a safety hazard.
The team does not want a golfer unknowingly hitting a shot into other golfers. Second, the carry
over the wetlands would be 210 yards for the back tee players, which is a longer carry than
should be required. Shifting Hole 2 to the north is not practicable due to the proposed road
location. A wetland seed mix would be used to revegetate this area with lower growing wetland
vegetation that would not obstruct long views. In this particular location W7 can be described as
0.42 acre of a PFO1/4 non -riparian wetland.
Hole 3
Earlier designs for Hole 3 had it playing either across the wetlands (east to west) or across
a finger of the existing pond in a more north -south orientation. These designs would have had
more natural beauty and would have been closer to the next tee (which is very important to the
flow and pace of play on a golf course). However, these alternate designs would have had a
much greater environmental impact on wetlands and stream buffers. The original Hole 3 design
would have caused 0.05 acre of fill and 0.78 acre of clearing and leaving stumps. The currently
proposed Hole 3 design has only a 0.07 acre impact to Wetland 29 (W29) resulting from a bridge
crossing, which is necessary for golf carts to get from #3 green to 44 tee. This cart path would
bridge 20 feet of stream (S 11) and its buffer. No portion of Hole 3 would encroach into W29.
W29 is a PFO 1 riparian wetland. S 11 is a perennial channel. Avoidance and minimization has
been demonstrated on Hole 3. A new 1.05-acre pond is proposed to create design interest on this
short hole.
Hole 4
Two small wetland fingers that are part of Wetland 47 (W47) encroach into the second
leg of Hole 4. Due to the surrounding roadway design, no practicable alternatives exist for Hole
4 that would completely eliminate the need for this wetland impact. Approximately 0.16 acre of
15

wetland impact is proposed in the form of fill to facilitate the construction of Hole 4 and to allow
for playability and visibility (safety). W47 can be described as 0.16 acre of a PFO I /a non -
riparian wetland.
Hole 5
The current design for Hole 5 would fill 0.13 acre of Wetland 53 (W53) for fairway
construction. This fill area is just short of the landing area and is in a high play zone so it is
important to clear and fill this area to make it playable. Earlier versions of Hole 5 had the hole
turning slightly to the left, with the green across the floodplain of Beech Branch After debating
the merits of having a more dramatic hole with an all -or -nothing carry, it was decided that the
wetland impact was excessive and the proposed impacts were too severe. The hole was
shortened drastically to minimize wetland impacts. A bridge crossing over W53 would be
necessary for golf carts to cross from 45 green to 46 tee. This bridge crossing would have a 0.12-
acre wetland impact to W53. Twenty (20) feet of Stream 25 (S25) would be bridged. The bridge
would also incur a 20-foot buffer impact. W53 is a PFOI riparian wetland (0.13 acre) and S25 is
a perennial stream (Beech Branch).
Hole 6
The primary feature on Hole 6 is an old man-made irrigation pond. The pond is
approximately 0.8 acres in size and is located in a natural drainage way of a UT of Beech Branch.
The design proposes creating 3.58 acres of wetlands along the northern edge of the pond. There
would not be any grading along the southern edge of the existing pond. The existing pond does
have a riparian buffer and approximately 850 ft of pond buffer would be affected in creating the
new wetlands. This particular buffer is vegetated primarily with herbaceous vegetation with
patchy trees and existing pasture.
Holes 7 and 8
Holes 7 and 8 have been designed to avoid all jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts.
Hole 9
Hole 9 has been redesigned to avoid all jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts. A
bridge across Stream S29b (S29b) would be necessary for golf carts to cross from #8 green to 49
tee. This bridge crossing would span 20 feet of S29b and 20 feet of the riparian buffer. S29b is a
perennial channel. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 10
Hole 10 has been redesigned to avoid all jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts. A
previous design of Hole 10 included 0.24 acre of impact to Wetland 56 (W56). The team
redesigned this hole to avoid impacts to Wetlands 55 (W55) and W56.
Hole 11
It is necessary to fill 0.18 acres of Wetland 54 (W54) in the teeing area to create the
proper width and playing angle for a dogleg right hole. Shifting the hole to the east or west
would have either incurred additional wetland impacts or impact the roadway design. Wetland
16

54 is a PFO1 non -riparian wetland
A new 2.10-acre lake would also be created entirely within uplands between Hole 411
and Hole # 12. The pond would have strategic, aesthetic and ecological value and would not
affect any wetlands. A littoral shelf can be constructed around the perimeter of the pond and can
be planted with desirable aquatic species. The littoral shelf would be maintained as an
herbaceous wetland and would help compensate for on -site impacts.
Hole 12
The filling of 0.37 acre to Wetland 53 (W53) is necessary in front of the 12th green for
playability. It is not reasonable to ask players to fly a shot over a wetland that guards the front of
a green on a long par four hole. The design team feels this impact is necessary in order to give the
players the option of hitting a low shot into the green. Avoiding this wetland impact would
require straightening the hole, which is not a practicable alternative in this instance. Shifting to
the west would incur greater impact and shifting to the east would impact the roadway design. At
this location, W53 is a PF01/4 non -riparian wetland. Hole 12 affects no streams or buffers.
Hole 13
Clearing of 0.85 acre of Wetland 53 (W53) would be cleared in front of the teeing area on
Hole 13. The design proposes only clearing the wetland and stumps would be left in the ground.
A wetland seed mix would be used to revegetate this area with lower growing wetland vegetation
that would not obstruct long views. Completely avoided this impact to W53 is not practicable
and the team has minimized the impact amount from an original 2.2-acre impact to the currently
proposed 0.85-acre impact. Impact minimization has been demonstrated. In this location W53 is
a PFO1 non -riparian wetland.
Just left of the landing area is an additional 0.06-acre wetland impact to Wetland 43
(W43). W43 is in a high play area and would be cleared and filled for playability. W43 is a
PFO1 non -riparian wetland.
Hole 14
The original plan for the fourteenth hole was to have it run along the northern edge of
Belmont Lake, just after the bridge. This would be a spectacular setting for a hole, perched
above the lake and in closer proximity to the thirteenth green. However, the potential riparian
buffer impact would have been excessive at close to 1,000 feet. To lessen the environmental
impact, Hole 14 was shifted north. The setting is less spectacular and the hole is much farther
from the 13th hole, but environmental impact is much less. Wetland impacts associated with
Hole 14 include clearing and stumping (no fill) 0.06 acre of Wetland 49 (W49) in front of the
tees and clearing and filling 0.01 acre of W49 for a cart path/culvert crossing. The design
demonstrates substantial avoidance and minimization at Hole 14. The wetland impact is at the
narrowest point and shifting north or south would incur greater wetland impacts. W49 is a
PF01/4 non -riparian wetland. No stream or buffer impacts would result from Hole 14.
Hole 15
17

There are three small, proposed wetland impacts on Hole 15. Impacts associated with
Hole 15 include clearing and stumping (no fill) 0.10 acre of Wetland 32 (W32) in front of the
tees and filling 0.01 acre for a cart path/culvert crossing in the same area. To create enough
room for the green, the design also proposes an additional 0.05-acre of clearing and stumping (no
fill) to the upper portion of W32. A wetland seed mix would be used to revegetate this area with
lower growing wetland vegetation that would not obstruct long views. Shifting Hole 15 to the
west would incur greater wetland impacts. The design team has minimized wetland impacts at
Hole 15 as much as practicable. W32 is a PF01/4 non -riparian wetland.
Hole 16
The sixteenth is another hole that has the potential to be visually stunning and is an
opportunity to improve downstream water quality. The existing man-made pond does not have a
water level control structure and the stability of the dam is questionable. It is mandatory that the
dam be reinforced and that a water level control structure is built. The ability to control the water
level would improve downstream water quality. Currently the water sheet flows across a low
spot along the southern edge of the dam and is causing severe erosion. Improving the dam would
involve a 0.19-acre impact to Wetland 25 (W25) and a 50-foot stream impact to Stream 12 (S 12).
Approximately 5000 ftz of the buffer to S 12 would be affected by new dam construction, but
should be exempt. Because the hole plays across the edge of the pond there would be a buffer
impact of 700 feet along the northeast edge of the pond resulting in created or restored wetlands.
The location and routing of this hole routing is essential to the flow of the golf course as there is
no other way to get back to the north side of the pond/wetlands without greater environmental
impact. This particular hole has been redesigned several times; however, the need to reconstruct
the existing dam is the primary reason for the unavoidable impacts. W19 is a PFOl riparian
wetland and S 12 is a perennial stream.
Hole 17
There is no wetland, stream, or buffer impact associated with Hole 17. In an attempt to
create a golf course that measures at least 7,000 yards from the back tees, and because it is best to
have longer holes towards tl,e end of the course, the original routing for Hole 17 proposed that
the green be 150 feet closer to the existing power lines. This original design would have caused
an impact to Wetland 8 (W8). By redesigning additional yardage on other holes, the design team
was able to move the green and entire golf hole out of W8. The design team completely avoided
wetland impact by redesigning this and other holes.
Hole 18
As is the case with the first hole, the finishing hole is the best opportunity to leave a
memorable impression on the golfer. Nearly all -great golf courses (such as the TPC at Sawgrass,
Pebble Beach, etc) have spectacular closing holes and the setting of Hole 18 at FCRM has great
potential by being located along the northern edge of Belmont Lake. The preferred alignment for
the 18th hole has the golfer standing on the tees and seeing the entire Hole stretch out in front of
him/her, with Belmont Lake playing along the entire right side. The hole would be the site of
high drama. The downside of the original scenario is that the buffer impact was too great.
18

The current design proposes a compromise. The tee shot would still play across a neck of
the pond, requiring clearing and stumping (no fill) 0.32 acres of Wetland 22 (W22) and 500 feet
of pond buffer impact resulting in wetland creation or restoration. Additional portions of the
buffer along the 18th fairway would be converted into created or restored wetlands to enhance the
existing wetlands adjacent to Belmont Lake. W22 is a PFOI riparian wetland.
Additionally there would be two, 20' stream buffer impacts for golf cart bridges. One
would be between the tees and the fairway and the impacts associated with this cart path crossing
are accounted for under Sewer Crossing 1 (SC1). The other cart path crossing would be between
the green and the clubhouse and crosses Stream 6 (S6). The bridged crossing would span
approximately 22 feet of S6, which is perennial. This crossing would also affect 2200 ft2 of
buffer along S6.
Practice Range
The typical practice range occupies a larger chunk of land (450' x 1200') than any other
feature on a golf course. Finding an area this large on the site without wetlands was nearly
impossible. After discussing many options, the team selected a location in the northwest corner
of the site. It satisfies many of the requirements for a successful range in that it is located near
the clubhouse, it is easily accessible and partially in view of drive -by traffic on US 301. The
practice range at FCRM is vital to the financial success of the golf course. We anticipate that it
would attract a great deal of play; people who do not have time to play a full round of golf but
want to practice, parents bringing their children to the range to teach them how to play, and
players warming up before a round on the course.
Constructing the practice range as proposed would impact 0.56 acre of Wetlands 12, 13,
and 14 (W 12, W 13, W 14). These wetlands run through the center of the range and would have
to be cleared and filled to make the practice range work. It is not an option to have a practice
range with a wetland in the middle as hundreds of balls would be lost each day and replacing the
balls would be too costly. W12, W13, and W14 are PFO1 riparian wetlands. The practice range
would also impact approximately 565 feet of Stream 5 (S5). This is the largest stream impact
resulting from golf course construction; however, it is unavoidable for the practicable
construction of a driving range and practice area. S5 is an intermittent channel.
Shifting the practice range to the north would cross the project boundary and shifting to
the south would encroach onto the multi -family use portion of the development. There are no
practicable alternatives for the practice range when the necessary criteria are taken into account.
Summary of Wetland Impacts from the Golf Course
Wetland impacts associated with the golf course consist of fill, clear and remove stumps,
and clear and leave stumps. A total of 1.12 acres of riparian wetlands and 1.21 acres of non -
riparian wetlands would be filled by golf course construction. Approximately 0.68 acres of
wetlands would be cleared and the stumps would be removed and 0.85 acres would be cleared
and the stumps would be left in the ground. These areas that are cleared would be allowed to
revegetated with low -growing wetland vegetation that may be routinely maintained by hand
19

clearing to keep it at the proper height.
Compensatory mitigation would be required for filling the 1.12 acres of riparian and 1.21
acres of non -riparian wetlands. Mitigation would also be required for those forested wetland
areas that are cleared and converted to low -growing herbaceous wetlands; however, the
mitigation ratios for this wetland conversion would typically be lower. No impacts to isolated
wetlands result from golf course construction.
Summary of Surface Water Impacts from the Golf Course
Approximately 717 linear feet of stream channel would be affected as a result of the golf
course and practice range at FCRM. The stream impacts comprise 585 feet of intermittent
stream and 132 feet of perennial stream. All of the intermittent stream footage that is proposed
for impact has been deemed important by ACOE. Approximately 82 feet of the perennial stream
total and 20 feet of intermittent channel would be spanned through cart path bridging and no
direct in -water impacts would result. Mitigation would be required for 50 feet of perennial
channel and the 565 feet of intermittent channel. The golf cart bridges would be elevated above
the bankfull elevation of each crossed stream to avoid a damming effect under heavy flow.
Sewer Line Impacts
Sanitary sewer service for FCRM is to be provided by the City of Rocky Mount. Stocks
Engineering, PA is responsible for designing the master sewer layout for FORM. The sewer
system has been designed to take full advantage of the site's existing topography and anticipated
infrastructure (i.e. roads). The main truck of the sewer system would closely follow the spine
road and ancillary roads throughout FCRM. This sewer system would serve FCRM; however, it
would ultimately become a City of Rocky Mount outfall line that would serve the region north of
FCRM. The design team has identified six potential wetland crossings resulting from
construction of the sewer system as summarized in Table 1. The sewer line would be installed at
a depth of 18 — 20 feet below the ground surface in most locations. Because of this depth, a
wider maintenance easement is necessary. During construction, the necessary easement would be
30 feet wide. After construction_, the maintained easement would be 20 feet wide. The easement
would be allowed to revegetate with low -growing herbaceous species; however, woody species
must be maintained and not allowed to grow within the easement.
Table 1. Sewer Tine Tmnacts nt FCRM_
Sewer
Crossing
Temporary
Riparian
Wetland
Impacts (ac)
Temporary
Non -Riparian
Wetland
Impacts (ac)
Temporary
Perennial
Stream
Impacts ft)
Temporary
Intermittent
Stream
Impacts (ft)
Zone 1
Buffer
Impacts
(ft2)
Zone 2
Buffer
Impacts
(ft2)
SC 1
30
2764
1215
SC2
0.01
30
2066
1229
SO
0.20
30
1812
1208
SC4
0.01
SC5
0.03
SC6
0.01
20

Totals 10.21 10.05 1 60 10 16642 13652
Isolated Wetland Impacts
Approximately 0.19 acre of isolated wetland impacts would result from construction of
the road system throughout FCRM. No isolated wetland impacts result from golf course
construction. Impacts to less than 0.33 acre of isolated wetlands east of 1-95 are deemed
permitted in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .1305(b) and do not require written approval from
DWQ as long as all conditions of 15A NCAC 2H .1305 (b) are followed.
Initially, the public notice dated November 12, 2004, indicated that the applicant was
working on a mitigation proposal to offset the unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
United States. Subsequently, on May 20, 2005, the initial mitigation proposal for impacts to
stream channels and wetlands associated with all phases of the project was published on public
notice for public and agency comment. The applicant has proposed to restore at a 1:1 ratio 2,315
linear feet and preserve at a 10:1 ratio 3,143 linear feet of stream channel on site. The applicant
also proposes to create 0.84 acre of emergent marsh wetlands at a 1:1 ratio along the lake edge
and to create another 0.37-acre emergent marsh wetlands at a 1:1 ratio bordering the smaller
pond on the property. The project also involves the restoration of 3.65 acres of headwater forest
wetlands at a 1:1 ratio. Another component of the compensatory mitigation plan is to provide
1.26 acre of enhancement to headwater wetlands and 1.92 acres of enhancement to an abandoned
beaver impoundment. Finally, the proposal involves the preservation of 12.80 acres of wetlands
(Wetland 53) and the preservation of 6.83 acres of Wetland 64, which can be classified as
headwater forest wetlands. A conservation easement would be placed on a 27.67-acre area,
which includes upland buffers. Initially, the conservation easement would be owned by the
FCRM homeowners association, but would be donated to either the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund or private non-profit land trust (i.e., Tar River Foundation) following the five years
post construction or when success criteria are reached, whichever is later.
C. Changes to Project: Following submittal of the permit application, the applicant
modified the proposed -project to reduce impacts to wetlands and the stream chamne-Is on site, to
further address potential to further avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts. The modifications
made in March 2005 included relocating the driving range, which resulted in a 0.53-acre
reduction in riparian wetland impacts and 384 linear feet of stream impacts. In June 2005, road
crossing 25, impacting 0.19-acre, was removed as the area was determined not to be subject to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Finally, two new sewerline crossings, resulting in 0.05 acre
of non -riparian wetlands were identified in August 2005. Accordingly, the proposed project
would permanently impact 4.18 acres (2.19-riparian; 1.99-non-riparian), temporarily impact 1.01
acres, permanently impact 1,199 linear feet of stream channel (398'-perennial; 801'-intermittent);
temporarily impact 60 linear feet; 0.02 acre of open water for Road Crossing 14 and 1.21 acres of
fill material into open water associated with proposed wetland creation.
Following the public notice and comments from the resource agencies, the applicant also
proposes to make a payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
for the restoration of an additional 4.18 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (2.19 acres of riparian
21

and 1.99 acres of non -riparian) in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020101), in
addition to their mitigation plan put on public notice on May 20, 2005.
II. Proiect Purpose:
A. Basic: The purpose of the project is to develop the subject property as a residential
golf course community, serving primarily out-of-state retirees. Therefore, the project is not water
dependent.
B. Overall: The existing phase of the subdivision currently occupies only a small
portion of the 1,150-acre tract. Remaining high ground portions of the site cannot be accessed
without installation of the road crossings. The proposed crossings are necessary to allow the
subdivision to expand to more effectively meet the regional demand for an upscale residential
housing and golf course development. A review of alternative development plans, including
those that reduce or avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., is included in this document.
III. Scone of Analysis: The proposed work would primarily benefit a privately owned and
funded corporation. Other than the requirement to obtain a Section 404 permit, no other federal
involvement in the proposed work is anticipated. Furthermore, the Belmont Farms portion of
the subdivision is currently occupied and functional in its current design, regardless of the
outcome of the proposed permit request. Given these factors, my analysis in this document
would not include any portion of the existing development. However, due to the varied locations
of the proposed road crossings and limit access to the property, it is .unlikely that development of
this phase of the site could be accomplished without issuance of a permit. Accordingly, analysis
within this document would extend to the limits of proposed phase of the subdivision (Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount of the 1,150-acre site). This determination is also supported by an
evaluation of the permit area in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. See Section V (C) below.
IV. Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and PendinLy:
A. State water quality certification (401): The North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) Permit/Certification Number 3535 was issued on
September 26, 2005. Special conditions were issued, and a copy of the certification and
accompanying conditions is attached as Exhibit A.
B. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Determination: The North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) consistency determination/permit was not
required.
C. Other authorizations: The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Land Quality, would be issuing a Sediment and Erosion Control Permit
prior to land disturbing activities occurring on the site.
22

V. Complete Application, Public Notice and Comments:
A. Important Dates: A complete application was received on November 4, 2004. The
Corps issued a public notice on November 12, 2004 and sent this notice to all interested parties
including appropriate State and Federal agencies.
B. Public Notice Comments: The Corps has reviewed all of the comments submitted in
response to the circulation of the public notice. Those comments are summarized below.
1. EPA: No written comment received, but verbal communication with
representative indicated that the applicant's proposed mitigation did not adequately offset
unavoidable impacts and did not meet their ratios of 2:1 for restoration, 4:1 for enhancement, 6:1
for creation and 10:1 for preservation.
2. USFWS: By letter dated December 3, 2004, the USFWS stated that due to the
presence of suitable habitat in Beech Branch, and believe that Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act has not been satisfied for the proposed activity at that time. They also noted that the
applicant has made some effort to demonstrate avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts
associated with the project. They mention the presence of 76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands to
remain undisturbed on the property, yet no preservation mechanisms were mentioned in the
Public Notice. They suggest that there are opportunities to establish on -site stream buffers and
the development of conservation easements, and possibly on -site wetland and stream
enhancement or restoration to compensate for unavoidable wetland losses indicated that due to
staff and funding constraints, they are unable to address the subject proposal and are taking no
action on the public notice.
3. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): By correspondence dated
November 30, 2004, the NMFS indicated that they had reviewed the plans and that the resources
involved are not ones for with the NMFS is responsible and, therefore, have no comments
regarding authorization by the Department of the Army.
4. SHPO: By letter dated December 20, 1994, the Corps informed the Advisory
Council of Historic Properties that the applicant had been coordinating with our office for a
Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Having applied
the criteria of effect, we had determined that the proposed undertaking would adversely affect the
Dr. Franklin Hart Farm, a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. ???????
Subsequently, by letter dated March 16, 2005, the State Historic Preservation Office provided
comments regarding the submittal of An Intensive Cultural Resource Investigation: Ford's
Colony, Nash County, ER 04-1792 dated February 21, 2005. The report authors noted that
eighteen new archaeological sites (3 INS 110-31NS 117) and previously recorded archaeological
site (31NS79) were recorded during the cultural resource investigation. Accordingly, for
purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the SHPO
concurs that the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places: 31NS79 and 31NS100 through 31NS117. Accordingly, the proposed project
23

would not have an adverse affect upon eligible or listed properties.
5. State and local agencies: By letter dated December 10, 2004, the WRC
provided comments on the proposed development. The letter stated that they are concerned that
the applicant proposed project would have the effect of interrupting and destroying the headwater
dynamics to the aquatic and wetland communities associated with Beech Branch and adjoining
water systems, which includes, but is not limited to, hydrology, water quality, nutrient cycling,
loss of wildlife habitat, and conversion of biotic communities. They also indicated a concern
regarding future requests for wetland fill within individual lots would increase the previously
mentioned impacts. The project plan should address all wetland fills during the initial process,
design the residential area so all individual lots are buidable without additional wetland or stream
fill, and include deed notification to residents stating no further wetland or stream fill be allowed.
They also mentioned that the proximity of this project to Swift Creek and the associated impacts
to water quality might adversely affect these and other rare species found in the Tar River.
Extreme caution and consideration should be taken to ensure the populations of these species are
not harmed as a result of the proposed project. Another concern was increased flooding that may
occur due to wetland and stream fill along with the associated residential development and its
impacts to the downstream towns of Rocky Mount and Tarboro. Finally, their letter addresses
the need to protect and preserve existing riparian buffers and to maintain their nutrient removal
functions within the entire Tar -Pamlico River Basin.
6. Organizations: The Pamlico -Tar River Foundation (PTRF) submitted
comments on the proposed project on December 10, 2004. They indicated that the developer had
reduced the jurisdictional impacts by almost one half from its original plans and that no lot fill
would impact wetlands. While PTRF appreciates those efforts, they reiterated that the applicant
must demonstrate that the no further impacts can practicably be avoided or minimized. They also
mention concern over whether the discharges of fill material would violate state water quality
standards. Finally, with respect to the development of the subdivision and golf course, they
urged the Corps to have FCRM to avoid and minimize impacts as much as possible and
encouraged the devel� fprnest to implement low impact development designs in order to maintain
as much as possible the pre -construction hydrologic characteristics and integrity of the area.
Subsequently, on May 20, 2005, the PTRF stated that when utilizing the EPA guidelines for
calculating mitigation ratios, there is a differential of —1.74 acres.
7. Individuals: Chris Miller with the Rocky Mount City Council, Ward 7,
submitted an e-mail dated December 12, 2004, indicating that they were positive about the
economic boost that FCRM would bring to the area, but had a concern regarding what appears to
be an extensive amount of wetland and stream fill associated with the development.
Furthermore, they expressed concern that all possible steps are taken to protect water quality and
to preserve ecologically valuable wetlands.
S. Others: No comments received.
C. Applicant response to the comments: The comments generated during the public
24

notice comment period were coordinated with the applicant during various meetings. Following
receipt of the comments, the applicant addressed come of the concerns. With respect to the
concern from EPA, FWS, NCWRC, the Pamlico -Tar River Foundation, and Chris Miller's
concern regarding avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts, the applicant modified the
location of the driving range, resulting in a decrease of wetland impacts by 0.5 acres and 384
linear feet of stream channel impacts. The agencies also expressed concern over the mitigation
ratios proposed by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant agreed not only to implement their
mitigation proposal, they also agreed to provide payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program for the restoration of 4.18 acres of wetlands (2.19 acres of riparian and
1.99 acre of non -riparian).
In response to SHPO comments, the applicant provided a plan, titled "Historic Hedge
Buffer' dated December 3, 2004 to ameliorate impacts from the proposed subdivision on Dr.
Franklin Hart Farm, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Subsequently, on
September 27, 2005, Mr. Peter Stanbeck with SHPO provided comments via e-mail that
provided the referenced plan is implemented in its entirety, there will be no impact upon the
listed property. The permit condition has subsequently been finalized and is included in this
document. See Section VII (C) k below.
Additional Coordination of Project Revisions: With the exception of endangered
species and cultural resources, the response provided by the applicant sufficiently addressed
comments and recommendations gathered during the public notice comment period. Since the
revision submitted by the applicant further minimized impacts associated with the project and
also resulted in additional mitigation, additional coordination with the commenting agencies was
not necessary.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): NA
2. USFWS: NA
3. NMFS: NA
4. SHPO: Received an e-mail dated September 27, 2005, from Mr. Peter
Stanbeck with the NC State Historic Preservation Office stating that there will be no effect on the
Dr. Franklin Hart Farm, provided that the permittee implement the plan, titled "Historic Hedge
Buffer" dated December 3, 2004.
5. State and local agencies: NA
6. Organizations: NA
7. Individuals: NA
8. Others (Including Internal Coordination): NA
25

VI. Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.101:
A. Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites): The applicant's
consultant, ESI, conducted a GIS-based site search within a 15-mile radius of the project study
area in order to determine if any properties meeting all of the applicant's development criteria
were present. The GIS search identified two properties that meet some of the necessary criteria
(Appendix II -Figure 1 of the applicant's Environmental Assessment). Figures and supplemental
information from DWQ (2004a) is provided in Appendix.II of the applicant's Environmental
Assessment. None of the sites met the applicant's purpose and need.
The first site (Parcel ID 30802) is approximately 902 acres and is located in the northwest
corner of Nash County (Appendix II -Figure 2 of the applicant's Environmental Assessment).
This site contains numerous stream channels including tributaries to Tumbling Run and Gideon
Swamp. Both stream systems have a Best Usage Classification of C, NSW. Class C
classification protects freshwaters for secondary recreational activities, fishing and propagation
and survival of aquatic life. This is the minimum classification for all freshwater (DEM 1992).
The supplemental NSW indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters that are subject to growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient input. The configuration
of the site and the presence of several constriction points throughout the property make it
undesirable from a golf course and residential development perspective. The numerous streams
and wetlands and the amount of intact forest would likely require considerable environmental
impacts. The site is not easily accessed through the primary roads and it is too far from a highly
developed area where water and sewer services can be easily provided. Additionally,
there do
not appear to be any on -site lakes or ponds that could provide irrigation opportunities. Creating
new lakes "on-line" with the onsite streams is not a desirable activity due to the riparian buffer
rules and other environmental regulations. This site is not conducive to the type of project that
the Ford's Colony team envisions.
The second site (Parcel ID 30789) is located near I-95 in northeastern Nash County. This
site is approximately 10 :U acres and lies adjacent to Fishing Creek and Beaverdam Swarnp
(Appendix II -Figure 3 of the applicant's Environmental Assessment). Both Fishing Creek and
Beaverdam Swamp have a Best Usage Classification of WS-IV; NSW. This indicates that they
both serve as a Water Supply for a Highly Developed (WS-IV) area and they are both Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW). Developing this site has the potential for negative environmental
impacts due to the two Water Supply streams along the north and west boundaries. The property
also contains a significant amount of jurisdictional wetlands based on the current National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and county soil mapping. Although the site is near I-95, it is too
far north of Rocky Mount to be able to utilize the comprehensive water and sewer services. This
site is not conducive to the type of development that the Ford's Colony team envisions.
Additionally, ESI has discovered that this parcel is being currently in the negotiation stages for
an undisclosed type of utilization.
Also, due to the size of the property required, it is likely that an off -site alternative would
result in increased impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The overall impacts proposed in
26

the current application are generally small relative to the size of the development (1,150 acres),
and are over half of the proposed impacts to allow access across stream channels to high ground
on the site, a limitation that would be faced by any equally sized property in the piedmont of
North Carolina.
A "No Action" alternative is here considered to be one that avoids all wetland and surface
water impacts. Due to the constraints dictated by site topography and land -grading requirements,
this project cannot be downsized or shifted to avoid all jurisdictional areas and still satisfy
project purpose and need. Additionally, due to the necessary area needed for a development such
as this, it has proven to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to locate a different site where
no jurisdictional areas occur.
A "No Action" decision at this location would result in negative economic impacts to
Ford's Colony, shareholders, and Nash County as a whole. The fact that this site has a history of
disturbance from previous agriculture, livestock activities, and silviculture also leads to the
conclusion that utilizing this site would be more appropriate -than attempting this venture on an
undisturbed property. The "No Action" alternative is not capable of achieving the basic purpose
and need of the proposed project and, therefore, is not a reasonable alternative.
The no action option is an alternative to the currently proposed activity. Elimination of
the road crossings would reduce impacts to waters of the U.S. by 398 linear feet of perennial
stream channel, 1,185 linear feet of intermittent stream channel that exhibits important aquatic
function and temporarily impact 60 linear feet of perennial stream channel along with 2.72 acres
of riparian wetlands and 2.21 acres of non -riparian wetlands, and 0.19 acre of isolated wetlands.
This alternative would limit the applicant's ability to expand and meet the regional demand for
residential development, and does not satisfy the applicant's purpose and need. The extent of
impacts to waters of the U.S. that would result from the proposed plan are minimal when
weighed against the financial losses that would be incurred by the applicant and local economy
with the no project alterative.
An upland alternative to the proposed project is also considered here. The alternative
would involve construction of all road crossings utilizing bridges or other structures that would
not result in the placement of any fill material into waters of the U.S. While this alternative may
be feasible utilizing current engineering and construction technologies, the additional expense
associated with these designs make this alternative prohibitively expensive for the applicant.
Accordingly, the applicant has proposed to utilize bottomless arch culverts in four of the
proposed crossings incurring the associated costs for these measures, and has concluded that
additional efforts to avoid impacts are beyond the financial scope of the project. While it is also
possible to locate the golf course out of jurisdictional areas, this would result in a redesign of the
entire project and would considerably reduce the return for the applicant and their investors. The
review of this alternative was based on information submitted by the applicant and by on -site
observations. While this alternative presents a less damaging alternative, it would not be
financially practicable and would not meet the applicant's project purpose.
27

The applicant present proposal involves a portion of property originally proposed for
development as Belmont Farms. Belmont Farms was proposed for development back in the
1970s. An 18-hole golf course as well as significant residential development was part of one of
the Master Plans. The entire project, as originally designed, was never developed. The existing
development along the southern shore of Belmont Lake was initiated in 1993 and consists of
Wood's Walk, Chimney Hill and Lake Pointe.
In 2003, the applicant contacted the owner of the Belmont Farms property to determine if
they might be interested in developing a joint venture to develop the subject property. The
original proposal would impact 1.6 acre of riparian wetland fill, 1.0 acre of non -riparian fill, 0.19
acre of isolated wetland fill, 398 linear feet of perennial stream channel and 620 linear feet of
intermittent stream channel impacts associated with roadway construction. Development of the
golf course and driving range would impact 1.12 acres of riparian wetlands, 1.21 acres of non -
riparian wetlands, and 1.53 acres of wetland clearing, 132 linear feet of perennial stream channel
impacts and 585 linear feet of intermittent stream channel impacts. Impacts associated with
sewerline construction would total 0.25 acre of wetland clearing and 60 linear feet of perennial
stream channel impacts.
Recently, the applicant purchased additional land in order to avoid some significant
wetland, stream and buffer impacts. The additional land also allowed for more open space and
greenspace that would be preserved while allowing the designers to avoid and minimize
significant environmental impacts.
The current scenario involves the applicant developing the properly as Ford's Colony at
Rocky Mount. The following information lists the primary reasons that the applicant has chosen
the Belmont Farms site for the Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount project.
Economic
1. The property owner wants to see the land developed and utilized.
2. There is existing zoning attached to the land, which allows for site development and this
works with the development position of the applicant. Zoning for 6 units per acre was
approved by the City of Rocky Mount in 1998.
3. The original 800 acres of land was under a single ownership. Previously zoned land
equaling 800 acres, under a single ownership, and with a willing landowner is difficult at
best to find.
4. The City of Rocky Mount wants this development to occur and has provided a grant to
the developers to encourage development of the property.
5. Nash County also wants this development and has also provided a grant to the developers.
6. The Governor of North Carolina is in favor of this project because of the benefit to the
community.
Marketability
1. The site is in close proximity to I-95. The applicant's strongest market share are to
individuals in the 45-65 age range who live in the Northeastern US from Ohio to New
28

York and also retired individuals who desire to move out of Florida and return to a more
temperate climate. The vast majority of those in the Northeast use the I-95 travel
corridor, which allows for easy access.
2. The site works into the market position, which the applicant strives to attract. The site is
in a state of stagnation in that no development occurred onsite between 1978-1998. The
lake was constructed in 1978 and the existing Belmont Farms residential area was
developed in 1998.
3. The applicant has found that a number of their existing and perspective homeowners are
looking to move a little further south and desire to be in closer proximity to a major
north/south corridor as compared to their current location in Williamsburg.
Environmental
1. The topography of the site is gently rolling and is well suited to development.
2. Some areas of the site are flat and open, which lend the land to higher density
development.
3. The existing Belmont Lake is a tremendous asset to the project. A lake such as Belmont
Lake would be extremely difficult to construct today due to cost and the current
environmental regulations including the Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rule.
4. The site has no hazardous issues hindering development.
5. There are no protected species issues associated with this site.
B. Minimization (modified project designs, etc.): With submittal of the modified project
plans, the applicant also provided information regarding efforts made to further minimize
impacts to waters of the U.S. Initially, the project involved the construction of the driving range
within wetlands, but was removed at the original proposed location resulting in a reduction of
0.53 acre of riparian wetlands and 384 linear feet of stream channel. Impacts to 0.19 acre of non -
riparian wetlands were also removed once it was determined that the site lacked evidence of
wetland hydrology. On the other hand, an additional 0.02-acre of open water impacts was added
associated with Road Crossing 14, which would now involve the installation of 1 bottomless arch
culvert instead of 2.
Project as Proposed: The proposed alternative would result in the loss of a total of 4.18 acres of
wetlands (2.19 acres of riparian and 1.99 acres of non -riparian), 1,199 linear feet of stream
channel (398' perennial, 801' of intermittent and 60 ` of temporary), 0.19 acre of isolated
wetlands, 1.21 acres of open water associated with wetland creation and 0.02 acre of open water
from road construction. The wetland areas on the project site are located mainly within the
riparian zones adjacent to the streams. The wetlands currently provide sediment and nutrient
removal for water flowing through them toward the stream, as well as retention of stormwater
and sediment flowing across the site when the stream channel accesses the adjacent floodplain.
However, stormwater flows are likely to flow through the wetland too rapidly to result in nutrient
removal. Also, the wetlands provide habitat essential for the foraging, mating, and migration of
aquatic, terrestrial, and avian animal species. The stream channel also serves as habitat and a
travel corridor for a variety of animal and plant species, ranging from fish and amphibians to
large mammals. Streams on site also provide essential nutrient cycling functions, and act as a
29

conduit for the transport of sediment downstream.
Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis: Following a review of all project alternatives, the
proposed alternative is the only alternative presented that meets the project purpose and need and
is financially feasible. In addition to the no project alternative, other alternatives exist that have
reduced impacts to aquatic systems. However, a review of these options demonstrates that their
selection would result in an excessive financial expenditure by the permittee or could
substantially reduce private and public benefit.
VII. Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines:
A. Factual determinations:
1. Physical substrate: The physical substrate of the streams at the crossing
locations would be substantially altered as a result of the placement of fill material. Although
turbidity rates in the stream below the worksites may temporarily increase during construction
activities, sedimentation and erosion control measures that are required by the state and local
government should prevent the excessive displacement of sediment downstream. Accordingly,
stream substrate below the project site should not be appreciably affected. Furthermore, fill
material that would be placed for golf course construction would result in permanent alterations
of the existing wetland substrate.
2. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity: The proposed project would have
an effect on current, circulation, or drainage pattern as the extent of impervious surface within
the catchment is increased. However, this effect should be moderated by water quality control
devices, which are required of the applicant since the project is located in the Tar -Pamlico basin.
The proposed impact to wetlands is minor and should not result in a measurable decrease in
floodwater retention.
3. Suspended particulate/turbidity: Downstream turbidities would increase
temporarily during construction of the site; however, this would be a short-term impact and
would likely diminish rapidly over time upon completion of construction. The majority of
sedimentation is likely to result from clearing and construction of upland areas. Any impacts
would be minimized by the implementation of appropriate erosion control measures as required
by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources and permit conditions.
4. Contaminant availability: The proposed project is not expected to introduce
contaminants or increase the likelihood of contamination. Stream crossings would be
constructed with corrugated metal pipes, concrete culverts, bottomless arch culverts, and clean
earthen material produced during grading activities adjacent to the crossings and should be free
of toxic pollutants or contaminants. Concrete would be cured prior to contact with open water,
eliminating the concerns associated with uncured concrete coming into contact with water until it
has hardened.
30

5. Aquatic ecosystem effects: The placement of fill associated with the project
would result in a total loss of the aquatic ecosystem and its functions within the impact
boundaries. The wetland areas would be filled and would no longer provide nutrient filtration or
sediment removal, and habitat present within the wetland areas would be lost. The effects
expected downstream would primarily be limited to increased runoff and temporary discharges of
sediment during construction. The temporary impacts can be limited by proper installation.of
sediment and erosion control devices, which are required by state and local ordinances and
permit conditions. While the project proposes to impact riparian habitat within the project site is
of high quality, the applicant has retained ownership of all remaining wetlands on the property,
which precludes individual homeowners from impacting jurisdictional areas and this area would
be protected in the form of a conservation easement once development of the project is
completed. However, the proposed project would still contribute to the cumulative degradation
of stream channels and associated aquatic ecosystem on and downstream of the site.
6. Proposed disposal site: No disposal sites are required by the proposed plans.
7. Cumulative effects: The cumulative impacts that are expected as a result of
this project (and all similar projects in the region) include the loss of riparian and wetland habitat
and the degradation of on -site and downstream aquatic habitat as a result of increased stormwater
runoff and additional sediment deposition. The effect of these incremental changes to the
watershed would result in further destabilization of stream channels in the drainage basin as more
stormwater is transported. The project would also result in degradation of water quality
downstream as a result of increased turbidity, runoff of pollutants, and addition of nutrients that
accompanies commercial and residential development. Due to the size of the development, the
cumulative effects of the proposed activity are undeniable. The applicant would need to
minimize these effects with the use of water quality control devices where Built Upon Areas
exceed 30% based upon a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification. Cumulative effects
can also be minimized by the proper enforcement of permit conditions, including the regular
maintenance of sediment control devices. The dedication of approximately 60 acres, including
most of the floodplain within the project boundaries, as open space should also help mitigate the
cumulative effects of this project, as well as future developments upstream.
8. Secondary effects: Secondary effects on the aquatic environment associated
with the proposed project would largely result from the environmental changes that would occur
across the property as a whole. Loss of upland forested areas, the addition of impervious
surfaces, and the loss of in -stream and riparian habitat and wetlands would cause changes in the
population of terrestrial and aquatic species makeup of the site. The secondary effects would
primarily be limited to the project site, and would be minimized by the buffers along the stream
channels that the applicant has agreed to protect. Sixty additional acres of wetland, stream and
buffers, including most of the floodplain on the site, would also serve to further minimize
impacts to the aquatic environment once the project is completed.
B. Restrictions on discharges:
31

1. Alternatives (See Section VI):
a) The activity is located in a special aquatic site (wetlands, sanctuaries
and refuges, mudflats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffle and pool complexes, etc.)
basic purpose.
yes_X no
b) The activity needs to be located in a special aquatic site to fulfill its
yes no_X
c) All practicable alternatives have been reviewed in section VI above. It
has been demonstrated that the alternative with the fewest impacts on the aquatic ecosystem
(least damaging alternative), has been identified.
effects.
yes_X no
d) The least damaging alternative has no other significant environmental
2. Other program requirements:
yes no_X
a) The proposed activity violates applicable State water quality standards
or Section 307 prohibitions or effluent standards.
yes no_X
b) The proposed activity jeopardizes the continued existence of federally
listed threatened or endangered species or affects their critical habitat.
yes no_X
c) The proposed activity violates the requirements of a federally
designated marine sanctuary.
yes no_X
3. The activity would cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of
the United States, including adverse effects on human health; life stages of aquatic organisms;
ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability; and recreational, aesthetic, and economic values.
32

yes no_X
4. Minimization of adverse effects:
a) Appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to minimize
potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem.
yes_X no
b) Compensatory Mitigation (Wetland restoration, enhancement, creation,
etc.): A total of 4.26 acres of wetland would be lost as a result of the project. The wetland areas
are within the riparian corridor and are stable and functioning. The applicant has proposed to
mitigate for these impacts with payment into the NCEEP for the mitigation of 4.26 acre of
wetlands. The applicant also proposes to restore 3.65 acres of riparian wetlands, enhance 3.18
acres of headwater forest wetlands, create 1.21 acres of emergent marsh and presently proposes
to preserve 19.63 acres of headwater forest and bottomland hardwood forest on -site.
Additionally, approximately 60 acres of remaining wetlands located within the open space
dedication are expected to remain undisturbed in perpetuity. The project should also result in the
loss of 1,199 linear feet of stream channel (398' perennial and 801' of intermittent), with an
additional 60 linear feet of temporary perennial stream impacts. To mitigate for these impacts,
the applicant has proposed to restore 2,315 linear feet and preserve 3,143 linear feet of stream
channel on -site. Also, the applicant proposes to make a payment into the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for the restoration of 2.19 acres of riparian wetlands
and 2.07 acres of non -riparian wetlands in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03020101). Remaining streams located on site would also be located within open space areas
established by the applicant. By letter dated September 14, 2005, the NCEEP has agreed accept
payment for the proposed impacts. Payment into the NCEEP is an acceptable form of mitigation
as established by the Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, dated November 4, 1998.
C. Findings: The project complies with the Guidelines because the following conditions
are to be included as part of the requested permit
1) Included Special Permit Conditions:
a) All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict
compliance with the attached plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these
plans must be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
b) Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved
modification to this permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take
place at anytime in the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands.
33

This permit does not authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill
material within waters or wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all
borrow and fill activities connected with this project.
c) Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation,
fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or
maintenance of this project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns
within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands.
d) If the North Carolina Division of Water Quality has issued a
conditioned Water Quality Certification for your project, the conditions of that certification are
hereby incorporated as special conditions of this permit (attached as Exhibit A).
e) All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained
to prevent contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other
toxic materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the
permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Quality at [phone],
Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act would be followed.
f) Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in
waters or wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any
pollutants except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from
land clearing activities), or unsightly debris will not be used.
g) The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply
with the terms and conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project,
and shall provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or
maintenance of this project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all
conditions, shall be available at the project site during construction acrid maintenance of this
project
h) The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control
measures necessary to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and
wetlands outside the permit area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate
installation of silt fencing or similar appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil
disturbance or the movement of earthen fill, and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed
areas. Additionally, the project must remain in full compliance with all aspects of the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A
Article 4).
i) The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or
upon its expiration before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and
in such time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct,
34

restore the water or wetland to its pre -project condition.
j) Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the
Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery
of the violation.
k) In accordance with its agreement with the State Historic Preservation
Officer, the permittee shall take such measures as provided by the National Historic Preservation
Act and approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer to preserve, to the extent practicable,
the farm known as Dr. Franklin Hart Farm, a property which is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places. This includes the implementation of the "Historic Hedge Buffer" planting plan
dated December 3, 2004. The buffer should meet the following requirements: be at least 20 feet
wide, should be dense, with a mix of deciduous and evergreen plantings and contain low,
medium and tall specimens, and should consist of holly, cedar and longleaf pine. The variety of
traditional and native species of varying sizes, both evergreen and deciduous should include the
number of plantings shown in the attached planting plan with respect to height and caliper
indicated on the plan as reference in the e-mail dated September 27, 2005, from Mr. Peter
Sandbeck with the NC Department of Cultural Resources to the permittee.
1) The permittee shall make payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in the amount determined by the NCEEP, sufficient to perform
the restoration of 2.19 acres of riparian wetlands and 2.07 acres of non -riparian wetlands in the
Tar -Pamlico River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020101. Construction within jurisdictional areas on
the property shall begin only after the permittee has made full payment to the NCEEP and
provided a copy of the payment documentation to the Corps, and the NCEEP has provided
written confirmation to the Corps that it agrees to accept responsibility for the mitigation work
required, in compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States Army Corps 0.1"
Engineers, Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.
m) The permittee shall implement the stream and wetland mitigation plan
entitled "Stream and Wetland Mitigation Planning Report — Rocky Mount., N.C." dated April 7,
2005, which includes the restoration of 2,315 linear feet and the preservation of 3.143 linear feet
of stream channel and riparian buffer, the creation of 1.21 acres of emergent marsh around pond
and lake edges, restoration of 3.65 acres of headwater forest wetlands, enhancement of 3.18 acres
and the preservation of 19.63 acres of riparian bottomland hardwood forest. The wetland
construction and planting phases of this plan (not to include monitoring, maintenance, or
replacement plantings) shall be carried out prior to, or concurrently with any impacts to waters of
the United States associated with this permit authorization, and must be completed no later than
one year from the date of issuance of this permit. With respect to the stream mitigation,
construction is to begin in the fall of 2006 and be completed no later than March 15, 2007.
35

n) The permittee shall complete an as -built channel survey within sixty
days of completion of the stream mitigation project construction. The permittee shall document
the dimension, pattern, and profile of the restored channel. The permittee shall establish
permanent cross -sections at an approximate frequency of one per 20 (bankfull-width) lengths,
which represent approximately 50% pools and 50% riffle areas. The permittee shall also include
in the as -built survey: photo documentation at all cross -sections and structures; a plan view
diagram; a longitudinal profile; vegetation information; and a pebble count for all cross -sections.
o) The permittee shall perform Level I monitoring each year for the 5-
year monitoring period, with the first monitoring year beginning on the date of completion of the
restoration plan, including planting. The permittee shall submit the monitoring reports to the
Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Project Manager, within sixty days after
completion of each monitoring year. If less than two bankfull events occur during the first 5
years, the permittee shall continue monitoring until the second bankfull event is documented.
The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years. In the event that the required
bankfull events do not occur during the five-year monitoring period, the Corps of Engineers, in
consultation with the resource agencies, may determine that further monitoring is not required. It
is suggested that all bankfull occurrences be monitored and reported through the required
monitoring period. The permittee shall perform photo documentation twice each year (summer
and winter) to be submitted with the yearly monitoring report, for the 5-year monitoring period,
and for any subsequently required monitoring period.
p) The permittee shall include the following information in the Level I
monitoring report for the site: reference photos; plant survival analysis; and channel stability
analysis. The permittee shall complete the Monitoring Data Record, Sections 1— 3, (pages 1 - 4,
attached as Exhibit B) for each cross-section, and for each year of monitoring. The permittee
shall include in the monitoring reports a discussion of any deviations from as built and an
evaluation of the significance of these deviations and whether they are indicative of a stabilizing
or destabilizing situation.
q) The mitigation success criteria, and required remediation actions, will
be generally based on the Appendix II, and the Photo Documentation, Ecological Function, and
Channel Stability criteria in the "Stream Mitigation Guidelines", dated April, 2003 (available on
the internet at http://www.saw.usace.anny.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream_mitigation.html),
pages 24 and 25, under "Success Criteria:"
r) The permittee shall maintain the dimension, pattern, and profile of the
streams above and below all pipes and/or culverts - the stream channel shall not be modified by
widening the stream channel or by reducing the depth of the stream. For the installation of pipes
and/or culverts, the pipe inverts will be buried at least one foot below the bed of the stream for
culverts greater than 48 inches in diameter. For culverts 48 inches in diameter or smaller,
culverts must be buried below the bed of the stream to a depth equal to or greater than 20 percent
of the diameter of the culvert. A waiver from the depth specifications in this condition may be
requested in writing. The waiver will only be issued if it can be demonstrated that the impacts of

complying with this condition would result in more adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
s) For the installation of pipes, the bank -full flows (or less) shall be
accommodated through maintenance of the existing bank -full channel cross sectional area.
Additional culverts at such crossings, if required, shall be allowed only to receive flows
exceeding bank -fall. Flows exceeding bank -full shall be accommodated by installing culverts at
the floodplain elevation where adjacent floodplain is available.
t) The wetland vegetation monitoring and wetland hydrology monitoring
identified pages 28-31 will be implemented as outlined in Ford's Colony Rocky Mount Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Planning Report dated April 7, 2005.
u) Prior to initiating construction within jurisdictional areas as authorized
by this permit, the permittee shall contact the Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field
Office Project Manager (available at telephone [phone], extension 24) to arrange a pre -
construction meeting between the Corps and the contractor who will perform the authorized
work.
VIII. Public Interest Review:
A. All public interest factors have been reviewed. The following public interest factors
are considered relevant to this proposal. Both cumulative and secondary impacts on the public
interest were considered.
Conservation.
Not Applicable.
2. Economics (33CFR320.4(q)).
The applicant would be the primary beneficiary with the sale of residential
lots, houses, and retail space. The project would help meet regional
demand for upscale housing for out-of-state retirees seeking a
recreational/residential retirement community. The project would also
provide an overall benefit to the local economy, and would result in
increases in local, state, and federal tax revenues. It would also result in
additional job opportunities during construction and upon occupation of
the residences.
3. Aesthetics.
The project would be designed to be aesthetically pleasing as a multi -use
planned development. However, the development would detract from the
rural nature of the surrounding land.
37

4. Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b)).
The project would result in the loss of 2.19 acre of riparian wetlands and
2.07 acre of non -riparian wetlands that currently provide some nutrient
filtering, sediment removal, and aquatic habitat. However, the applicant
would mitigate for these unavoidable impacts through payment into the
EEP program for 2.19 acre of riparian and 2.07 acre of non -riparian
wetlands to assist in offsetting the impacts associated with this project.
5. Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e)).
Development of the site would not impact archaeological resources based
upon the SHPO's review of an intensive archaeological survey conducted
by the applicant and reviewed by the SHPO. With respect to Dr. Franklin
Hart Farm, SHPO required the full implementation of a planting plan titled
"Historic Hedge Buffer" dated December 3, 2004. Provided the planting
plan is implemented as required, it is anticipated that the historic value of
the farm would be preserved.
6. Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c)).
Species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are not known to exist on
the site. However, suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel and Tar
spinymussel may be present several miles downstream of the project. The
applicant conducted a survey to determine how the project would impact
these resources, with the results of the survey provided to the USFWS on
December 16, 2004. Based upon their correspondence dated May 19,
2005, USFWS concurred that the project will have no effect on threatened
or endangered species, provided proper sedimentation and erosion control
measures are implemented and the remaining wetlands on the property are
preserved through a conservation easement. Development of the site
would impact other species of fish present within stream channels within
the project area. The permit has been conditioned to prevent the
placement of obstructions within stream channels that would obstruct the
movement of aquatic organisms. Additionally, the use of sediment and
erosion control should provide additional protection to the in -stream
habitat. Upland wildlife habitat would also be effected by the proposed
development; however, these impacts should be somewhat minimized by
the preservation of the over 60 acres of remaining wetlands, streams and
buffers within the project boundaries.
7. Flood hazards.
Not applicable.
8. Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1)).
With the exception of road crossings and creation of portions of the
38

wetland mitigation, development of the site would exclude the floodplain.
However, ,runoff from the site would likely increase as a. result of
additional impervious surface and may result in minimal increases in flood
elevations downstream. This effect should be minimized by the
construction of stormwater devices required to meet the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality's 401 permit. Furthermore, the applicant is
preserving a majority of the areas within the mapped floodplain.
9. Land use.
The project would be in compliance with local zoning ordinances.
10. Navigation (33CFR320.4(o)).
Not applicable.
11. Shore erosion and accretion.
Not applicable.
12. Recreation.
Since the development involves the construction of a golf course, there
will be a limited increase in recreational opportunities for those private
individuals who are able to pay the required fees.
13. Water supply (33CFR320.4(m)).
The new development associated with the project would result in minimal
increases in water consumption rates. Also, increases to impervious
surfaces on the site may alter water infiltration onsite, yet these impacts
are expected to be negligible.
14. Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d)).
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality permit/certification Number
3535 was issued on September 26, 2005. Special conditions were issued,
and a copy of these conditions is attached as Exhibit A. No major impacts
to water quality are expected. However, increases in turbidity during
construction, loss of nutrient removal capacity of the filled wetland, and
some discharge of pollutants and nutrients in the subdivision runoff may
result in minor adverse impacts.
15. Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n)).
The project will result in increased energy consumption during
construction from equipment to prepare the site. Furthermore, energy
needs will increase for the newly constructed homes and businesses within
the project limits. However, this effect is expected to be negligible.
16. Safety.
39

The project will be designed to meet local building codes and is not
expected to result in a negative impact to overall safety of the area.
17. Food and fiber production.
Not applicable.
18. Mineral needs.
Not applicable.
19. Considerations of property ownership.
Adjacent landowners may be affected as a result of the proximity of their
property to the project. The development may result in an increase in their
property value and resulting tax rate.
B. Need for Proposed Project: The applicant has established a need for the proposed
impacts based upon necessity to access high ground on the site and the economic benefit that
would result from the project. Also, the economic value resulting from the project would benefit
the public. Specifically, the local, state, and federal tax base would benefit from the value added
to the property and the temporary and permanent jobs that would be created. Furthermore, the
applicant would be in a better position to meet market demand for residential and commercial
space.
C. Alternative Locations: See section VI, - Alternatives.
D. Permanence of Effects: The project benefits to the applicant and public are expected
to last throughout the life of the development. Project impacts would generally be permanent,
with the exception of impacts associated during construction, which would include increased
noise and downstream turbidity.
E. Threatened or endangered species: Three known species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are
known to occur in Nash County. A "No effect" determination was made on the red -cockaded
woodpecker due to a lack of suitable habitat. It was later determined that the project is "Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" either the dwarf wedge mussel or the Tar spinymussel, which the
USFWS concurred in their letter dated May 19, 2005.
F. Corps Wetland Policy: Based upon a review of the proposed impacts relative to the
anticipated benefits of the project, it has been determined that the beneficial effects of the project
outweigh the detrimental impacts of the project. Additionally, mitigation will be provided to
offset the loss of jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, resulting from the
development.
G. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts: Cumulative and secondary impacts associated
with the project are expected to be minor. The site has previously been developed for Phase I of
40

VA
the project, and it is possible that additional expansion may occur in the future. Adjacent land
parcels that are currently farmed or wooded may become available for development as a result of
the expected increase in land value, and because of the increased demand for commercial sites
that traditionally follows suburban residential expansion. It is likely that some impacts to the
aquatic environment would be required for future developments in the area, most likely as a
result of the extension of utilities (i.e., water and sewer services), and because of construction of
new roads. While it is certain that there will be a cumulative impact that results from the
development, it is difficult to predict the extent of this impact. If this project were not
constructed, the effect would be a temporary reduction in rate of development within the region,
however the demand for new residential and commercial space would not diminish. See Section
VII (A) 7 & 8 for additional discussion.
H. Essential Fisheries Habitat (EFH): No adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat
will result from the proposed project.
IX. Public Hearing Evaluation (If Applicable): No requests for a public hearing were
received, and no public hearing was held.
X. Corps analysis of comments and responses: In response to concerns raised by the
EPA, the Corps ensured that a final mitigation plan was reviewed, approved, and included as a
condition of the permit and that ratios were adjusted to meet their guidelines. The EPA provided
no other comments. In response to comments provided by the SHPO, the Corps took several
steps, which included setting up a meeting with the applicant and representatives from the
SHPO's office to discuss the concerns. Following the meeting, correspondence between the
applicant and the SHPO resulted in a mutually acceptable arrangement that has been approved by
the Corps and is included as a condition of the permit. Several comments were also received
from the WRC. Most of the concerns raised were addressed as part of the modifications
proposed by the applicant in response to the agency comments. To address concerns regarding
stream buffering, the applicant provided information showing that most of the remaining stream
channels within the project site would be buffered. In response to recommendations that stream
impacts be reduced, the applicant modified the driving range, resulting in a reduction of wetland
and stream impacts. Following a review of the modification and supplemental information that
was submitted, the Corps felt that the applicant had adequately addressed all concerns. This
decision was based not only on the extent to which the concern may potentially impact aquatic
resources, but also the closeness of the relationship between the concern and the regulated
activity. See Section V (C) for additional discussion.
XI. Determinations:
A. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Having reviewed the information
provided by the applicant and all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental
impacts, I find that this permit action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the
human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
iti

B. Compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines. Having completed the evaluation in Section
VI above, I have determined that the proposed discharge complies with the 404(b)(1) guidelines.
C. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review: The
proposed permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to regulations
implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been determined that the activities
proposed under this permit will not exceed de minimis levels of direct or indirect emissions of a
criteria pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR Part 93.153. Any later indirect
emissions are generally not within the Corps' continuing program responsibility and generally
cannot be practicably controlled by the Corps. For these reasons a conformity determination is
not required for this permit action.
D. Public Interest Determination: I find that issuance of a Department of the Army
permit is not contrary to the public interest.
E. Public Hearing Request (If applicable): Not applicable.
F. Civil Rights: In accordance with Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Executive Order 12898, it has been determined that the project would not directly or through
contractual or other arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the
basis of race, color, or national origin nor would it have a disproportionate effect on minority or
low-income communities.
Jea&B. Manuele Date
Chiefs Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
REVIEWED BY:
/ zs' ©�
Samuel K. JollyU 0 Date
Chief, Regulatory Division
APPROVED BY:
112,9' os'
John E. Pulli`ain, Jr. U U Date
O��'Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
42

0� wArk,RQ�
r
0 li `C
Mr. Drew Mulhare
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
One Ford's Colony Drive
Rocky Mount, NC, 27809
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
November 3, 2006
Re: Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, Nash County
DOA Action ID 200421182, DWQ Project No. 20041801
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE per the
Tar -Pamlico River Buffer Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259) with Additional Conditions
APPROVAL of Isolated Wetlands Permit
Dear Mr. Mulhare:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3535 issued to Mr. Drew Mulhare of Ford's Colony at
Rocky Mount, LLC, dated January 27, 2006. Isolated wetlands impacts associated with this project are
covered by the State General Permit for Impacts to Isolated Wetlands and Isolated Waters
(IWGP100000). This letter shall also act as your approved Authorization Certificate for impacts to the
protected riparian buffers per 15A NCAC 213 .0233. In addition, you should get any other federal, state
or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste,
Sediment and Erosion Control, Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non -discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This Certification replaces the one issued to you on February 10, 2006.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
I Y
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: Jean Manuele, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, USACOE
Eric Kulz, DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Todd St. John, Kimley-Home, P.O. Box 33068, Raleigh, NC, 27636-3068
Jeff Harbour, ESI, 524 New Hope Road, Raleigh, NC, 27610
Filename: 041801FordsColony(Nash)401 MOD2
N.e�k Carolina
401 OversighUExprnss Review Permits Unit ,/VlltllPa��l�
1660 Mail Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet http://h2o.ennstate.naus/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 2 of 7
November 3, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Mr. Drew Mulhare of Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
to permanently fill 3.98 acres of wetlands (including 2.08 acres of riparian wetlands, 1.99 acres of non -
riparian wetlands, and 0.19 acre of isolated wetlands) and 1,199 linear feet of stream channel (including 348
linear feet of perennial streams and 809 linear feet of intermittent streams), and to impact 71,701 square feet
of protected riparian buffers and for temporary impacts to 60 feet of perennial streams, 1.30 acres of
wetlands, and 12,632 square feet of protected riparian buffers, 1.03 acres of wetland creation, and 0.02 acre
of open water fill, adjacent to Beech Branch in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, associated with the
construction of the Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount development in Nash County, North Carolina, pursuant
to an application filed on the l2th day of November of 2004, and in additional correspondence received
April 1, April 12, August 9, September 7, September 23, 2005 and February 9, 2005.
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval Ietter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 211 .0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in
writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved nits
Plan Location or Reference
Stream
1,199 (feet) permanent
Final project impacts as listed in
impacts
September 7, 2005
(348 feet perennial,
correspondence from
809 feet intermittent)
Environmental Services, Inc and
(also 60 feet perennial
revisions described in January
stream temporary impacts)
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kimley-
Hom Associates, inc./WK
Dickson

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC;
Page 3 of 7
November 3, 2006
404 Wetlands
3.98 (acres) permanent
Final project impacts as listed in
impacts
September 7, 2005
(2.08 acres riparian, plus
correspondence from
1.99 acres non -riparian)
Environmental Services, Inc and
(also 1.30 acres temporary
revisions described in January
impacts)
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kimley-
Horn Associates, Inc./WK
Dickson
Isolated Wetlands
0.19 (acre)
Final project impacts as listed in
September 7, 2005
correspondence from
Environmental Services, Inc and
revisions described in January
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kimley-
Horn Associates, Inc./WK
Dickson
Tar -Pamlico Buffers
71,701 (square feet)
Final project impacts as listed in
permanent impacts
September 7, 2005
(also 12,632 square feet
correspondence from
temporary impacts)
Environmental Services, Inc and
revisions described in January
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kin -ley -
Horn Associates, Inc./WK
Dickson
Open Water Impacts
1.03 (acres) wetland creation
Ford's Colony Rocky Mount
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Planning Report, April 7, 2005
0.02 (acres) of permanent fill
Correspondence from Kimley-
Horn dated September 23, 2005
Revisions described in January
16, 2006 and February 9, 2006
correspondence from Kimley-
Horn Associates, Inc./WK
Dickson
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 4 of 7
November 3, 2006
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or ]eased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/401Permit Application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
Continuing Compliance:
Mr. Drew Mulhare and/or Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC, shall conduct construction
activities in a manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements
resulting from compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate
requirements of State law and federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws
are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or
federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the
Division may reevaluate and modify this Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d).
Before modifying the Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. Drew Mulhare and/or Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr. Drew
Mulhare and/or Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC in writing, shall be provided to the United
States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project;
Mitigation: (Buffers, Streams and Wetlands need details here)
6. Compensatory Mitigation
a. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
1) Ecosystem Enhancement Program to meet 1:1 wetland restoration/creation ratio
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts to wetlands as specified below. We
understand that you wish to make a payment to the Wetlands Restoration Fund
administered by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation
requirement to meet the 1:1 restoration/creation requirement. This has been determined
by the DWQ to be a suitable method to meet the mitigation requirement. Until the EEP

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 5 of 7
November 3, 2006
receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR — Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Office), no impacts specified in this Authorization Certificate shall occur. The
EEP should be contacted at [phone] if you have any questions concerning
payment into a restoration fund. You must make this payment within 60 days of the date
of this Certification or before impacts approved in this Certification occur, whichever
come first. Otherwise you must notify this Office within three weeks of the date this
Certification of the specific date (before impacts occur) that you will make this payment
for written approval by this Office. For accounting purposes, this Authorization
Certificate authorizes payment into the Wetlands Restoration Fund to meet the
following compensatory mitigation requirement:
2.08 acres riparian and 2.18 acres non -riparian wetland impacts.
2) On site to meet remaining onsite wetland mitigation requirements
A final compensatory wetland mitigation plan must be approved in writing by this Office
before any permanent building associated with the project is occupied for the additional
wetland mitigation proposed in the application and additional information provided to
NCDWQ. Additionally, the compensatory mitigation plan must be completely
constructed and implemented according to the plans approved by this Office within 5
years of this Certification. The mitigation must be maintained according to the approved
plan and permanently protected by the use of conservation easements or similar
protections. Any repairs or adjustments to the mitigation site must be made according to
the approved plan or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs
or adjustments.
b. Compensatory Stream and Buffer Mitigation
The stream and buffer restoration must be constructed, maintained, and monitored
according to the approved plans in the application and modifications to the application
(Stormwater Stream and Mitigation Planning Report, April 7, 2005). Any repairs or
adjustments to the site must be made according to the approved plans or must receive
written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments.
Stream and buffer mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts as specified
below. Additionally, the compensatory mitigation plan must be completely constructed
and implemented according to the plans approved by this Office by March 15, 2008 or as
otherwise approved by this Office in writing. The final mitigation must provide at least
348 feet of successful perennial stream restoration according to the approved plans.
Additionally, a minimum of 5541 square feet of buffer mitigation is required for the
2716 square feet of buffer impacts requiring mitigation as part of this stream restoration
project. The mitigation must be maintained according to the approved plan and
permanently protected by the use of conservation easements or similar protections. Any
repairs or adjustments to the mitigation site must be made according to the approved plan
or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments. Any
significant changes to the plan must be approved by this Office in writing before the plan
is implemented.
In order for this project to be used as compensatory mitigation for other specific projects,
you must obtain written approval from this Office. The request should include the amount

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 6 of 7
November 3, 2006
of stream length and buffer area credit requested for accounting purposes. Please specify
DWQ project No. 20041801 when making your request.
If the above stream and buxrer restoration project is to be held, performed, and/or
provided by another entity such as but not limited to the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program or a mitigation banker, then the transaction must be approved by this Office in
writing before the transaction occurs. In order to receive written approval for this
transaction, it must be demonstrated to the Division that the mitigation requirements
specified in this Condition shall be completely and uniquely met.
Road Crossings:
7. Culvert Installation
Culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles
are not altered. Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions, pattern, and
longitudinal profile) must be maintained above and below locations of each culvert. Culverts shall
be designed and installed to allow for aquatic life movement as well as to prevent head cutting of
the streams. If any of the existing pipes are or become perched, the appropriate stream grade shall
be re-established or, if the pipes installed in a perched manner, the pipes shall be removed and re-
installed correctly.
The establishment of native, woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques
must be used where practicable instead of rip rap or other bank hardening methods. If rip -rap is
necessary, it shall not be placed in the stream bed, unless specifically approved by the Division of
Water Quality.
Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement and be designed to
adequately accommodate high water or flood conditions.
Stormwater Management:
8. a) Before each development phase that is anticipated to exceed 30% impervious cover, including,
at a minimum, the 7 focus areas (as described in Appendix B and C of the "401 Water Quality
Certification - Stormwater Management Permit Application" dated May 11, 2005) is paved, final,
written stormwater management plans for that phase shall be approved in writing by the Division
of Water Quality's Wetlands Unit. The facilities must be designed to remove 85% TSS as well as
treat nitrogen in the runoff from each area. Also, before any permanent building or other
structure is occupied in each area, the facilities (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) for that area
shall be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management plan for that area (as
approved by the Wetlands Unit) shall be implemented. The structural stormwater practices as
approved by the Wetlands Unit as well as drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No
changes to the structural stormwater practices shall be made without written authorization from
the Division of Water Quality.
b) Before each development phase that is anticipated to be less than 30% impervious cover and is
outside the 7 focus areas (as described in Appendix H of the "401 Water Quality Certification -
Stormwater Management Permit Application" dated May 11, 2005) is paved, final, written
stormwater management plans for that phase shall be approved in writing by the Division of
Water Quality's Wetlands Unit. The facilities must be designed to provide diffuse flow through
the protected riparian buffers or designed to remove nitrogen and attenuate flow prior to

Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 7 of 7
November 3, 2006
discharge. Also, before any permanent building or other structure is occupied in each area, the
facilities (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) for that area shall be constructed and operational,
and the stormwater management plan for that area (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) shall be
implemented. The structural stormwater practices as approved by the Wetlands Unit as well as
drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater
practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
Other conditions:
9. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of the project, the Applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project. Please send photographs
upstream and downstream of each culvert site to document correct installation along with the
Certificate of Completion form_
10. Deed Notifications
Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained jurisdictional wetlands,
waters and protective buffers in order to assure compliance for future wetland, water and buffer
impact. These mechanisms shall be put in place prior to impacting any wetlands, waters and/or
buffers approved for impact under this Certification Approval and Authorization Certificate. A
sample deed notification can be downloaded from the 40l/Wetlands Unit web site. at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The text of the sample deed notification may be modified as
appropriate to suit to this project.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit. The Isolated Wetlands
Permit will expire upon the expiration date of IWGP100000 (September 30, 2008) or unless
otherwise rescinded by the Director of the Division of Water Quality.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If
modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the
modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the Yd day of November 2006
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/chk �;

Certification of Completion
w
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of Wetland Permit:
County:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to send
certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Agent's Certification
I, hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I, _ . as a duly registered Professional (i.e., Engineer,
Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically,
weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Registration No.
Date

Drew Mulhare
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
1 Ford's Colony Drive
Williamsburg, VA 23188
Project: Fords Colony at Rocky Mount
RECEIPT
PA PA, GE I VE.
NOV 6 9 7005
RALEIGH REGULMR2f FIELD 1FF10 E
October 27, 2005
DWQ #: 04-1801
COE #: 200421182
County: Nash
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) has received checks in the amount of $88,580.25, check
number 1326, as payment for the compensatory mitigation requirements of the 401 Water Quality Certification/Section 404
Permit issued for the above referenced project. This receipt serves as notification that the compensatory mitigation
requirements for this project have been satisfied. You must also comply with all other conditions of this certification and any
other state, federal or local government permits or authorization associated with this activity.
The NC EEP, by acceptance of this payment, acknowledges that the NC EEP is responsible for the compensatory mitigation
requirements associated with the project permit and agrees to provide the compensatory mitigation as specified in the permit.
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the US Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998, as indicated in the table
below.
River Basin
Wetlands
Stream
Buffer
Buffer
Cataloging
(Acres)
(Linear Feet)
Zone 1
Zone 2
Unit
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
Riparian
Non -Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Cold
Cool
Warm
Tar -Pamlico
2.19
2.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
03020101
Please note that a payment made to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is not reimbursable unless a request for
reimbursement is received within 12 months of the date of the receipt. Any such request must also be'accompanied by letters
from the permitting agencies stating that the permit and/or authorization have been rescinded.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone],
S' cerely,
�1l
am D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Jean Manuele, USACE - Raleigh
Eric Kulz, DWQ Regional Office - Raleigh
File
2z"torlptg... ... PIrOtgcdt 29 OGf f" State,
r1 MENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net